On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:08:03PM +0000, Gray, Mark D wrote: > > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 6:12 PM > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:05:33PM +0000, Gray, Mark D wrote: > > > > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:59 PM > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:53:45PM +0000, Gray, Mark D wrote: > > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:51 PM On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at > > > > > > 04:42:36PM +0000, Gray, Mark D wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:28:56AM -0600, swair shah wrote: > > > > > > > > > When packets which does not match any rule in ovs, are > > > > > > > > > buffered at the ingress switch, say first n packets are > > > > > > > > > buffered. Switch sends a flow_mod and message and > > > > > > > > > packet_out for the buffered packets, meanwhile if some > > > > > > > > > more packets of the same flow arrive (say n+1 to m), > > > > > > > > > they'll also get buffered (as > > > > flow_mod) hasn't arrived yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once flow_mod message arrives at the switch then > > > > > > > > > subsequent packets of the flow will be forwarded but > > > > > > > > > packets (n+1 to m) will still be buffered waiting for > > > > > > > > > their packet_outs. This results in reordering of > > > > > > > > packets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a way around this, besides from proactively > > > > > > > > > setting up a > > > > flow? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a way to match flow_mod to existing buffered packets? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reordering can happen. There isn't a way to avoid it > > > > > > > > entirely (besides proactive flow setup). It isn't usually a > > > > > > > > problem, though, because most protocols only send one packet > > > > > > > > before they receive a reply from the opposite end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only way that I can think to nail up a flow is via dpctl. > > > > > > > Is this how you suggest to do this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you be more specific about what you want to do? I can think > > > > > > of a few possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what Swair wants but I would like to be certain to > > > > > avoid reordering of packets traversing the vswitch. I suspect the > > > > > way to do this is to add a flow into the datapath and make it > > > > > persistent so that upcalls are never triggered. > > > > > > > > I don't see how that can solve the problem that he is reporting. > > > > Did you read his whole scenario? If we knew how to handle the > > > > packet in the datapath at the beginning of the scenario then we > > > > would not be sending it to the controller. > > > > > > I see the confusion, he is referring to using a controller and it not > > > matching the switch, I am thinking of missing the datapath. My bad .. > > > > > > > > I doubt that this is a real problem that needs to be solved, because > > > > it's been in the back of my mind since about 2008 as a possible > > > > concern but this is the > > > > > > It has been a concern of mine for a while and I also expected it to > > > come up at some stage but it never did. I don't think it is an issue > > > in most cloud deployments but could see it be an issue in NFV > > > deployments as usually there would be an expectation that a router or > > > another network element wouldn't reorder. > > > > > > However, hypothetically, how would you resolve this? > > > > One way would be to send only the first packet in a given microflow to the > > controller and buffer the rest. OpenFlow provides three ways for > > controllers > > to handle packet-ins: > > I was talking about the similar problem across the dpif interface. > > * Packet group A arrives at NIC and get sent to ofproto as an upcall. > > * Upcall processes some packets from A and calls operate() from dpif. > operate() will execute ops, a FLOW_PUT followed by EXECUTEs. > However, some packets may not have been executed are still > buffered in the vswitchd. > * At this point, packet group B arrives at the NIC but matches on the fast > path > as the flow has already been "put" and are sent directly without having an > upcall. > > The remaining packets from group A that are buffered in the > vswitchd will arrive out of order. How could we resolve this?
I don't have a solution I really like. The solutions I've thought of have significant downsides. I'd love to hear of a good solution. In the absence of both a good solution and a situation where there's a real problem to solve, I don't intend to worry about it. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
