On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 1:52 AM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/9/25 11:35 PM, Han Zhou wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 11:38 AM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/9/25 8:01 PM, Han Zhou wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 5:35 AM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/10/24 12:35 PM, Ales Musil wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:43 AM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The actions that retrieve the original tuple destination IPs and
> > ports
> >>>>>> were used in the following way in ovn-northd:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV4 " = ct_nw_dst()
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV6 " = ct_ip6_dst()
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_TP_DPORT " = ct_tp_dst()
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where:
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV4 is reg1
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV6 is xxreg1
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_TP_DPORT is reg2[0..15]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While the actions use a different intermediate register:
> >>>>>>   ct_nw_dst()  was reg4<-0; reg4<-ct_nw_dst
> >>>>>>   ct_ip6_dst() was xxreg0<-0; xxreg0<-ct_ip6_dst
> >>>>>>   ct_tp_dst()  was reg8[0..15]<-0; reg8[0..15]<-ct_tp_dst
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We can reduce the set of registers we use in the OVN pipeline by
> >>>>>> changing the action definition to use the same registers ovn-northd
> >>> uses
> >>>>>> as final destination for the ct_*_dst() values.  This will generate
> > the
> >>>>>> following openflow rules:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV4 " = ct_nw_dst()
> >>>>>>     reg1<-0; reg1<-ct_nw_dst; reg1<-reg1
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV6 " = ct_ip6_dst()
> >>>>>>     xxreg1<-0; xxreg1<-ct_ip6_dst; xxreg1<-xxreg1
> >>>>>>   REG_ORIG_TP_DPORT " = ct_tp_dst()
> >>>>>>     reg2[0..15]<-0; reg2[0..15]<-ct_tp_dst;
reg2[0..15]<-reg2[0..15]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As Ilya Maximets points out, overlapping source and destination are
> >>>>>> well defined for move actions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
https://opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/openflow-switch-v1.5.0.noipr.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   This action must behaves properly when src_oxm_id overlaps with
> >>>>>>   dst_oxm_id, that is, it behaves as if src_oxm_id were copied out
> >>>>>>   to a temporary buffer, then the temporary buffer copied to
> >>>>>>   dst_oxm_id, if this is not possible the switch must reject the
> >>>>>>   Copy Field action with a Bad Set Type error message.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OpenvSwitch doesn't reject such actions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 0f806cf08c36 ("Fix load balanced hairpin traffic for
> > fragmented
> >>>>>> packets.")
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  include/ovn/logical-fields.h | 7 ++++---
> >>>>>>  tests/ovn.at                 | 8 ++++----
> >>>>>>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/include/ovn/logical-fields.h
> >>> b/include/ovn/logical-fields.h
> >>>>>> index d563e044cb..70c6b93c41 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/include/ovn/logical-fields.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/include/ovn/logical-fields.h
> >>>>>> @@ -60,9 +60,10 @@ enum ovn_controller_event {
> >>>>>>  #define MFF_LOG_LB_AFF_MATCH_LR_IP6_ADDR    MFF_XXREG1
> >>>>>>  #define MFF_LOG_LB_AFF_MATCH_PORT           MFF_REG8
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -#define MFF_LOG_CT_ORIG_NW_DST_ADDR         MFF_REG4
> >>>>>> -#define MFF_LOG_CT_ORIG_IP6_DST_ADDR        MFF_XXREG0
> >>>>>> -#define MFF_LOG_CT_ORIG_TP_DST_PORT         MFF_REG8
> >>>>>> +#define MFF_LOG_CT_ORIG_NW_DST_ADDR         MFF_REG1   /*
> >>>>>> REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV4 */
> >>>>>> +#define MFF_LOG_CT_ORIG_IP6_DST_ADDR        MFF_XXREG1 /*
> >>>>>> REG_ORIG_DIP_IPV6 */
> >>>>>> +#define MFF_LOG_CT_ORIG_TP_DST_PORT         MFF_REG2   /*
> >>>>>> REG_ORIG_TP_DPORT
> >>>>>> +                                                        * (bits
> >>> 0..15). */
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  void ovn_init_symtab(struct shash *symtab);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/tests/ovn.at b/tests/ovn.at
> >>>>>> index 15b78f4c37..03fd2090fc 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/tests/ovn.at
> >>>>>> +++ b/tests/ovn.at
> >>>>>> @@ -2420,10 +2420,10 @@ mac_cache_use;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  # ct_nw_dst()
> >>>>>>  reg1 = ct_nw_dst();
> >>>>>> -    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0->reg4,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_NW_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_REG4[[]]->NXM_NX_XXREG0[[64..95]]
> >>>>>> +    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0->reg1,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_NW_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_REG1[[]]->NXM_NX_XXREG0[[64..95]]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  xreg1[[3..34]] = ct_nw_dst();
> >>>>>> -    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0->reg4,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_NW_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_REG4[[]]->NXM_NX_XXREG0[[3..34]]
> >>>>>> +    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0->reg1,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_NW_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_REG1[[]]->NXM_NX_XXREG0[[3..34]]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  reg1[[3..34]] = ct_nw_dst();
> >>>>>>      Cannot select bits 3 to 34 of 32-bit field reg1.
> >>>>>> @@ -2442,7 +2442,7 @@ ct_nw_dst();
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  # ct_ip6_dst()
> >>>>>>  xxreg1 = ct_ip6_dst();
> >>>>>> -    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0/0xffffffffffffffff->xxreg0,set_field:0/0xffffffffffffffff0000000000000000->xxreg0,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_IP6_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_XXREG0[[]]->NXM_NX_XXREG1[[]]
> >>>>>> +    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0/0xffffffffffffffff->xxreg1,set_field:0/0xffffffffffffffff0000000000000000->xxreg1,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_IP6_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_XXREG1[[]]->NXM_NX_XXREG1[[]]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  reg1 = ct_ip6_dst();
> >>>>>>      Cannot use 32-bit field reg1[[0..31]] where 128-bit field is
> >>> required.
> >>>>>> @@ -2455,7 +2455,7 @@ ct_ip6_dst();
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  # ct_tp_dst()
> >>>>>>  reg1[[0..15]] = ct_tp_dst();
> >>>>>> -    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0/0xffff->reg8,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_TP_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_REG8[[0..15]]->NXM_NX_XXREG0[[64..79]]
> >>>>>> +    encodes as
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
set_field:0/0xffff->reg2,resubmit(,OFTABLE_CT_ORIG_TP_DST_LOAD),move:NXM_NX_REG2[[0..15]]->NXM_NX_XXREG0[[64..79]]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  reg1 = ct_tp_dst();
> >>>>>>      Cannot use 32-bit field reg1[[0..31]] where 16-bit field is
> >>> required.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.46.2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> dev mailing list
> >>>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Looks good to me, thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Ales Musil <[email protected]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Ales!  Applied to main and backported to 24.09 and 24.03.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Dumitru
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Han,
> >>
> >>> Hi Dumitru, Ales, I am trying to figure out the current register usage
> > and
> >>> saw this old commit. I am not sure I understand the motivation of this
> >>> patch. Is there a problem of using different registers for
intermediate
> >>
> >> There's no problem per se but we were using two registers instead of
> >> one.  The intermediate register was overwritten and then its new value
> >> immediately copied to the final destination register.
> >>
> >> The goal of the patch was to free up registers for other things in we
> >> might need to do in the pipeline.
> >>
> >>> usage? Although this patch tried to use the same register for
> > intermediate
> >>> and final destination, a later commit from Ales 91988089c5 ("northd:
> >>> Consolidate register usage in logical flows.") already broke it again.
> >>> Shall we fix that again?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I guess we probably should.  Maybe this time we should change the way
> >> the ct_*_dst() actions are encoded?  I'm not sure how to prevent this
> >> from happening again in the future though.
> >>
> >
>
> Hi Han,
>
> > I think the right way to encode actions that require intermediate
registers
> > is to save the original content of the register on the stack beforehand
and
> > restore it afterwards. This way the intermediate registers won't really
> > occupy the register space, and we don't need to worry about conflict
> > usage/overwriting. Otherwise, it is very hard to maintain and not even
easy
> > to ensure the register is not overwritten accidentally if the same
action
> > is called at different stages.
> > I will go ahead with this approach if it makes sense. What do you think?
> >
>
> Sure, I was thinking of something similar initially too but I'm not sure
> how we can easily implement it.  I might be missing something though.
>
> For example:
>
> reg4 = ct_nw_dst();
>
> Is actually parsed as the following sequence of logical actions today:
>
> // ct_nw_dst()
> LOAD(reg1, 0)
> RESUBMIT(table=81) // This might write reg1.
> LOAD(reg4, reg1)
>
> So the problem I saw was that we're losing the information we had in reg1.
>
> To fix it, IIUC, you're suggesting to use the stack, I assume something
> like:
>
> // ct_nw_dst()
> PUSH(reg1)
> LOAD(reg1, 0)
> RESUBMIT(table=81) // This might write reg1.
> LOAD(reg4, reg1)
> POP(reg1)
>
> But the problem is that we're mixing the encoding of two logical actions
> (the push/pop are for the ct_nw_dst() call while the load(reg4, ..) is
> for the assignment).
>
> I guess, the correct way is to have a proper calling convention for all
> function-like actions like ct_nw_dst(), get_fdb(), etc.  And ensure we
> always return the value in a predefined way, maybe always push it on the
> stack?

Hi Dumitru,

I managed to encapsulate the push/pop in the actions themselves.
Please take a look at the patch-5 in the series:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/list/?series=466312

Thanks,
Han
>
> Regards,
> Dumitru
>
> > Regards,
> > Han
> >
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Han
> >>>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dumitru
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> dev mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> 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