>-----Original Message----- >> I think this is an interesting idea. >> >> One caveat is that in this case we use the rules' field to infer the flows' >> field. If the rule >> does not consider a field within which the flow has high entropy, it still >> does not help. >> Or if the rule considers many fields but the flow does not have high entropy >> there, then >> we add the incremental software hash overhead for little benefit. >> >> I am not sure if that is common in real cases, I am more concerned with the >> second scenario, >> what do you think? >> >Yes, you're right. >I don't have any good solution, but are we able to observe from the >subtable entries or its statistics to see whether a field has high >entropy? So in your second scenario, we don't have to add all new >fields into the hash but only a subset of them. >
[Wang, Yipeng] To profile entropy I believe sampling the packets into a bloomfilter/bitmap could do the job. But I think eventually people will debate on If the profiling cost and code complexity worth the effort or not. >> We should profile a little bit to see how much overhead the incremental CRC >> will >> cost. >> >That would be very helpful! >Thanks >William _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
