David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 10/27/19 9:21 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Rather, what we should be doing is exposing the functionality through >> helpers so XDP can hook into the data structures already present in the >> kernel and make decisions based on what is contained there. We already >> have that for routing; L2 bridging, and some kind of connection >> tracking, are obvious contenders for similar additions. > > The way OVS is coded and expected to flow (ovs_vport_receive -> > ovs_dp_process_packet -> ovs_execute_actions -> do_execute_actions) I do > not see any way to refactor it to expose a hook to XDP. But, if the use > case is not doing anything big with OVS (e.g., just ACLs and forwarding) > that is easy to replicate in XDP - but then that means duplicate data > and code. Yeah, I didn't mean that part for OVS, that was a general comment for reusing kernel functionality. > Linux bridge on the other hand seems fairly straightforward to > refactor. One helper is needed to convert ingress <port,mac,vlan> to > an L2 device (and needs to consider stacked devices) and then a second > one to access the fdb for that device. Why not just a single lookup like what you did for routing? Not too familiar with the routing code... > Either way, bypassing the bridge has mixed results: latency improves > but throughput takes a hit (no GRO). Well, for some traffic mixes XDP should be able to keep up without GRO. And longer term, we probably want to support GRO with XDP anyway (I believe Jesper has plans for supporting bigger XDP frames)... -Toke
