On Sat, Mar 1, 2025 at 6:38 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Numan Siddique <[email protected]>
>
> This patch series optimizes ovn-controller to add only relevant
> datapaths to its "local datapaths" map if the logical topology
> has a single flat provider logical switch connected to multiple
> routers with a distributed gateway port.
>
> (Patch 3 has a detailed commit message.)
>
> v1 -> v2
> -----
>   * Rebased to resolve the conflicts.
>
> Numan Siddique (3):
>   controller: Store local binding lports in local_datapath.
>   northd: Add a flag 'only_dgp_peer_ports' to the SB Datapath.
>   controller: Optimize adding 'dps' to the local datapaths.
>
>  controller/binding.c        | 324 +++++++++++---
>  controller/binding.h        |   2 +
>  controller/local_data.c     |  98 ++++-
>  controller/local_data.h     |  10 +-
>  controller/lport.c          |  12 +
>  controller/lport.h          |   4 +
>  controller/ovn-controller.c |  38 ++
>  northd/northd.c             |  31 +-
>  northd/northd.h             |   4 +
>  tests/multinode.at          | 185 +++++++-
>  tests/ovn-northd.at         |  59 +++
>  tests/ovn-performance.at    |   6 +-
>  tests/ovn.at                | 853 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  13 files changed, 1545 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.48.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev


Hi Numan,

Sorry for the slow review. I have a general comment for this series. I
believe the exact same performance optimization is supposed to be achieved
by the below commit:

22298fd37 ovn-controller: Don't flood fill local datapaths beyond DGP
boundary.

The scenarios are mentioned in detail in the commit message of that patch,
which is very similar to what you described here.

The only exception was when there are distributed NAT or when the
redirection type is set to "bridged". In these cases it will fall back to
add peer datapath as local. See SB:Port_Binding:options:always-redirect. Is
this something that your patch is targeting? Otherwise I wonder why it
didn't work without your patch.
Could you help clarify?

Thanks,
Han

<https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to