From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com [209.85.220.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9D2379E for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:46:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id r5so7117194pag.1 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Itpx1EIHrC6yksRQS/10CWOE6kpf7Lvb8k9L+X0ZmoQ=; b=bg33DPiRONTXxdGHrI1l4C1XMIfJLl2tXYojNimO99RpNzokLP3ad+HAsWDvkC8OxR +cgOwCXOsemsLMg0G8/hP+OZQyXPiOiuwxYotFECa+1wtCQiUYN0rxOFNs3OyHqEC6BJ Lt7VRH+F5DwbM7LqsgTf2UtLuUskf5MaGlfk6e9vNWaagR7BMtR4lGkGfWZqmY6i53Za KRhJneTzpPyp4HFeXRtyHyLPbMhK3kLm6YpOllMf4yOcG6lacUnrEEWtieYVnwBYABCe Jkyh+otjUIjVriqN/n28wnpdcACIHeW/lc3OOnOchJLpTLJUBIcciLrZxC2HbKkoTSRi QHew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Itpx1EIHrC6yksRQS/10CWOE6kpf7Lvb8k9L+X0ZmoQ=; b=FKVKC4QAlmvuJ7w+n7wI9Z5gG3rP99n+Ynnsd//8dIbZR2nG931WFye91Rn6Xgfhh/ BU9o6S8dmdBS46/KNCQGGCt9zPqW/qSb1sZeo505Vl9rcJQLyOHh1ksD3kwvwgbZJQeq Xnu8Ln8OiA2joVf+QqSKSp4AARQxdkZ0V0eJ32QchmnjYoQDvGPMnf0yoNOm661cHrdo GHewwGIsHE4dJDusyUFZiKlNg/vKxrhFrTkOYWDCEcJSyE4fvAGIjoGnkDiNdMXJvK83 immggJ4kqCn6Plc3rt/i9XkWmxzT6r7b730v+P3EovlfJDnkWN6O6J8UT4Kz2HTjjdsr jQuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX3MaqrF0QGG5/khVCmNJ4oAFADhkcxxs6EWTJq16AwjG87SEtZ2TjwasGvDgzq5g== X-Received: by 10.66.189.65 with SMTP id gg1mr5044752pac.148.1461080787022; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-71-109.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.71.109]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v1sm19922170pfv.92.2016.04.19.08.46.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:46:40 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: =?UTF-8?B?0JDQu9C10LrRgdCw0L3QtNGAINCa0LjRgdC10LvQtdCy?= Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20160419084640.52235b05@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] perfomance of rte_lpm rule subsystem X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:46:28 -0000 On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:11:11 +0300 =D0=90=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=BA=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=B4=D1=80 =D0=9A=D0=B8=D1=81= =D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=B2 wrote: > Hi. >=20 > Doing some test with rte_lpm (adding/deleting bgp full table rules) I > noticed that > rule subsystem is very slow even considering that probably it was never > designed for using > in a data forwarding plane. So I want to propose some changes to the "rul= e" > subsystem. >=20 > I reimplemented rule part ot the lib using rte_hash, and perfomance of > adding/deleted routes have increased dramatically. > If increasing speed of adding deleting routes makes sence for anybody else > I would like to discuss my patch. > The patch also include changes that make next_hop 64 bit, so please just > ignore them. The rule changes are in the following > functions only: >=20 > rte_lpm2_create >=20 > rule_find > rule_add > rule_delete > find_previous_rule > delete_depth_small > delete_depth_big >=20 > rte_lpm2_add > rte_lpm2_delete > rte_lpm2_is_rule_present > rte_lpm2_delete_all >=20 We forked LPM back several versions ago. I sent the patches to use BSD red-black tree for rules but the patches were ignored. mostly because it broke ABI.