Sure Andrew. Is there a unit test case for ACL plugin ? From: Andrew đź‘˝ Yourtchenko <ayour...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:57 PM To: Govindarajan Mohandoss <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com> Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; nd <n...@arm.com>; Lijian Zhang <lijian.zh...@arm.com>; Jieqiang Wang <jieqiang.w...@arm.com> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ACL question
1-3: no. 4: please make a “make test” test case illustrating the problem and share it. --a On 28 Apr 2020, at 22:37, Govindarajan Mohandoss <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com<mailto:govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com>> wrote:  Hi Andrew, I am working on ACL plugin SF+SL optimization on ARM servers. I am finding prefetches in ACL node is becoming bottle neck. I see performance improvements on both SL & SF mode, when SF mode bihash table related prefetching is disabled. I need some help with right ACL config to verify my patch. I did the testing with Ingress ACL -- 1 Rule and 50 Rules (Rule: <SIP, DIP, UDP, SPORT, DPORT> - DPORT is incremented). The Traffic match all the 50 rules. When I tried to add 100 rules on the same rule set in SF mode: "acl_add_replace -1 ipv4 permit+reflect src 192.81.1.1/32 dst 192.82.1.1/32 proto 17 sport 100 dport 1, ... , ipv4 permit+reflect src 192.81.1.1/32 dst 192.82.1.1/32 proto 17 sport 100 dport 100", I see only 48 rules in show tables and 48th rule is added as “permit” all and not “permit + reflect”. Does it mean <0 – 47> rules will be SF and the rest will be in SL mode ? " vpp# show acl-plugin acl acl-index 0 count 49 tag {} 0: ipv4 permit+reflect src 192.81.1.1/32 dst 192.82.1.1/32 proto 17 sport 100 dport 1 .... 47: ipv4 permit+reflect src 192.81.1.1/32 dst 192.82.1.1/32 proto 17 sport 100 dport 48 48: ipv4 permit src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 proto 0 sport 0-65535 dport 0-65535 applied inbound on sw_if_index: 1 used in lookup context index: 0 " 1. Is there a limit of 48 on number of rules that can be added into the Rule table (acl-index 0) in SF mode ? 2. Whether 48 rules in a ruleset is good enough to verify my optimization patch (Traffic flow will match all the 48 rules) ? 3. Can I associate more than 1 ACL rule set to an ingress interface (like “vat# acl_interface_set_acl_list TenGigabitEthernet1/0/0 input 0 1 2”) ? Each Rule set 0, 1, 2 will have different ACL rules. Do I need to test this case also to study the performance gain ? 4. In SL mode, When I tried to add 100 rules, only 53 rules are seen in show table. 53rd rule is added as permit all (Should I read it as permit all ?). Is there a limit on number of rules in SL mode ? “ vpp# show acl-plugin acl acl-index 0 count 54 tag {} 0: ipv4 permit src 192.81.1.1/32 dst 192.82.1.1/32 proto 17 sport 100 dport 1 …. 52: ipv4 permit src 192.81.1.1/32 dst 192.82.1.1/32 proto 17 sport 100 dport 53 53: ipv4 permit src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 proto 0 sport 0-65535 dport 0-65535 applied inbound on sw_if_index: 1 used in lookup context index: 0 “ Thanks Govind > -----Original Message----- > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> On Behalf Of Govindarajan > Mohandoss via Lists.Fd.Io > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:32 AM > To: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayour...@gmail.com<mailto:ayour...@gmail.com>> > Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ACL question > > Thank you very much Andrew !! I will do some benchmarks and get back to > you to understand it better. > > Thanks > Govind > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayour...@gmail.com<mailto:ayour...@gmail.com>> > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 7:52 AM > > To: Govindarajan Mohandoss > > <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com<mailto:govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com>> > > Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>; nd > > <n...@arm.com<mailto:n...@arm.com>> > > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ACL question > > > > > On 27 Mar 2020, at 00:47, Govindarajan Mohandoss > > <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com<mailto:govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > I just found out that ACL action differentiates SF or SL. > > > Following > > command enables SF and provides better performance. > > > > > > “acl_add_replace -1 ipv4 permit+reflect dst 192.82.1.1/32” > > > > > > > > > > > > Few more questions: > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > Choosing between VPP Classifiers and ACL Plugin: > > > > > > > > > https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/5716?p=,,,20,0,0,0::relevance, > > > ,A > > > CL,20,2,60,10641995 > > > > > > You mentioned that VPP classifiers are faster than ACL plugin. > > > For <L2, L3, L4> field based classification, which one provides > > > better data > > plane perf ? > > > > > > It depends. If you wanna simultaneously match on all three, there is > > currently no mechanism to generically do so. > > > > But then every time I looked at the use cases claiming to require > > that, turned out it was a bad idea to represent the data this way - > > because of combinatorial explosion. Even ACLs themselves suffer from > > this issue - N sources times M destinations times K servces equal > > N*M*K rules, which quickly skyrockets. > > > > > Does classifier support ranges ? > > > > > > Classifier supports chained masked lookups. You might emulate ranges > there. > > > > That said, I had seen ranges used only in a tiny percentage of the > > cases. So they are a corner case imho. > > > > > > > Which one is better if the rate of ACL rule add/del is high / low? > > > > > > Classifier single table is your best bet probably. ACL plugin > > deliberately does not have an API to add/del a single rule - you > > always download the entire ACL. > > > > > Whether ACL rule priority is supported in both the schemes ? > > > > > > First match for Acl and multi table classify case. Single table is > > just a hash lookup because the entries don’t overlap by definition > > > > > Whether ACL Plugin SF mode will perform better than classifier ? > > > > > > I did not benchmark them. It's somewhat different use cases. > > > > > Whether classifier also has SF mode ? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > > > > > > ACL Plugin: > > > > > > SF mode – How much of extra memory is needed compared to SL mode ? > > > > > > Depending on the number of active sessions... each session creates two > > binash table entries, and consumes an entry in the session pool. The > > default values in the code for the bihash memory usage have been > > tested with half a million sessions - so you can extrapolate from > > those with some ballpark (though bihash memory usage is not linear wrt > > the entries, and also there is some extra memory churn due to bucket > > reallocations when the size increases). > > > > —a > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Govind > > > > > > > > > > > > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > > > <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> On Behalf Of > > > Govindarajan Mohandoss via Lists.Fd.Io > > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:37 PM > > > To: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayour...@gmail.com<mailto:ayour...@gmail.com>> > > > Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > > > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ACL question > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > Thanks for the document. > > > > > > Can you please share the documents related to ACL plugin CLI > > > config for > > both stateful & stateless modes ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried the following commands for input ACL in VAT CLI. Not sure > > whether this is SL / SF ? > > > > > > “ > > > > > > vat# acl_add_replace -1 ipv4 permit dst 192.82.1.1/32 > > > > > > vl_api_acl_add_replace_reply_t_handler:70: ACL index: 0 > > > > > > vat# acl_interface_set_acl_list TenGigabitEthernet13/0/0 input 0 > > > > > > vat# acl_interface_list_dump TenGigabitEthernet13/0/0 > > > > > > vl_api_acl_interface_list_details_t_handler:115: sw_if_index: 3, > > > count: 1, n_input: 1 > > > > > > input 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > vat# help acl_add_replace > > > > > > usage: acl_add_replace <acl-idx> [<ipv4|ipv6>] > > <permit|permit+reflect|deny|action N> [src IP/plen] [dst IP/plen] > > [sport X-Y] [dport X-Y] [proto P] [tcpflags FL MASK], ... , ... > > > > > > “ > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Govind > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayour...@gmail.com<mailto:ayour...@gmail.com>> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 4:49 AM > > > To: Govindarajan Mohandoss > > > <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com<mailto:govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com>> > > > Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>; Lijian Zhang > > > <lijian.zh...@arm.com<mailto:lijian.zh...@arm.com>>; > > > Jieqiang Wang <jieqiang.w...@arm.com<mailto:jieqiang.w...@arm.com>>; nd > > > <n...@arm.com<mailto:n...@arm.com>> > > > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] ACL question > > > > > > > > > > > > As an acl plugin author I can say both stateful and stateless ACLs > > > are used > > for different consumers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Various matching implementations in vpp are used in different use > cases... > > and there is not a single silver bullet magic answer, because the > > trade offs are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://nonsns.github.io/paper/rossi19ton.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > Is a reasonable read on the subject - also because it relates to VPP > > > and the > > real project that we did a while ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > --a > > > > > > > > >> > > >> On 25 Mar 2020, at 17:26, Govindarajan Mohandoss > > <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com<mailto:govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com>> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hello ACL Maintainer, > > >> > > >> We want to measure and optimize the ACL performance for ARM > > servers. As per the foll. link, there are 4 different implementation > > of ACLs in VPP. > > >> > > >> https://fd.io/docs/vpp/master/usecases/acls.html > > >> > > >> We would like to start with most commonly used ACL implementation > > >> in > > VPP which can cover L2, L3 and L4 fields. As per the link above and > > CSIT reports (link below), it looks like ACL plugin is the right match. > > >> > > >> Can you please confirm ? ACL plugin has 2 variants – Stateful & > Stateless. > > Which is common and widely used in VPP ? > > >> > > >> > > >> https://docs.fd.io/csit/master/report/detailed_test_results/vpp_per > > >> fo > > >> rmance_results/index.html > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Govind > > >> > > >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments > > >> are > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose > > the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or > > copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16188): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16188 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/72544608/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
