On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:56:46PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:43:59PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:39:51PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:16:35PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > Until 8bf009bf8ab4 ("xlate: Always recirculate after an MPLS POP to a > > > > non-MPLS ethertype.") the translation code took some care to only > > > > recirculate as a result of a pop_mpls action if necessary. This was > > > > implemented using per-action checks and resulted in some maintenance > > > > burden. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately recirculation is a relatively expensive operation and a > > > > performance degradation of up to 35% has been observed with the above > > > > mentioned patch applied for the arguably common case of: > > > > > > > > pop_mpls,set(l2 field),output > > > > > > > > This patch attempts to strike a balance between performance and > > > > maintainability by special casing set and output actions such > > > > that recirculation may be avoided. > > > > > > > > This partially reverts the above mentioned commit. In particular most > > > > of the C code changes outside of do_xlate_actions(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> > > > > --- > > > > * Lightly tested using test-suite portion of this patch > > > > > > I think that recirculation is necessary for output to patch ports. > > > > I believe this is already handled in my patch as recirculation > > is triggered in xlate_table_action(). > > > > As part of the incremental patch below I have included a test > > to exercise this. > > > > > I think that recirculation is necessary for output to a group that > > > chooses a bucket based on L3+ fields, even if the actions in the group > > > do not otherwise require recirculation. > > > > Thanks, I missed that one. I think that the best thing to do at > > this time is to trigger recirculation for select groups - other groups > > don't access fields as you describe and should already be handled correctly. > > > > The incremental patch below updates the code to do this as > > well as providing a test to exercise this case. > > Thanks. Will you submit the squashed patch, then?
Yes of course, will do. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev