DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>,
	Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
	Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
	Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu>,
	Andre Nathan <andre@digirati.com.br>,
	Qiaobin Fu <mengxiang0811@gmail.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lpm: hide internal data
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 20:30:23 +0100
Message-ID: <505d3e00-717b-25f8-ffea-d6108165a12a@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DBAPR08MB5814D3F01B00EC9DF0B85C7698020@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>


On 15/10/2020 18:38, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> <snip>
>> On 10/14/20 7:57 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/10/2020 18:46, Michel Machado wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/20 11:41 AM, Medvedkin, Vladimir wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Michel,
>>>>>>>> Could you please describe a condition when LPM gets inconsistent?
>>>>>>>> As I can see if there is no free tbl8 it will return -ENOSPC.
>>>>>>>       Consider this simple example, we need to add the following
>>>>>>> two prefixes with different next hops:,
>>>>>>> If the LPM table is out of tbl8s, the second
>>>>>>> prefix is not added and Gatekeeper will make decisions in
>>>>>>> violation of the policy. The data structure of the LPM table is
>>>>>>> consistent, but its content inconsistent with the policy.
>>> max_rules and number_tbl8s in 'struct rte_lpm' contain the config
>> information. These 2 fields do not change based on the routes added and do
>> not indicate the amount of space left. So, you cannot use this information to
>> decide if there is enough space to add more routes.

Thanks Honnappa, agree, these two fields are read only after LPM 
initialization, I confused them with rte_fib's "rsvd_tbl8s" and 
"cur_tbl8s", so there is no need to read them directly from LPM after 
initialization. I'd suggest just keeping them as external variables 
outside of the LPM library (in kind of a global configuration I suppose?).

>>      We are aware that those fields hold the config information not a status of
>> the LPM table.
>>      Before updating a LPM table that holds network prefixes derived from
>> threat intelligence, we compute the minimum values for max_rules and
>> number_tbl8s. Here is an example of how we do it:
>> https://github.com/AltraMayor/gatekeeper/blob/95d1d6e8201861a0d0c698
>> bfd06ad606674f1e07/lua/examples/policy.lua#L135-L166
>>      Once these minimum values are available, we get the parameters of the
>> LPM table to be updated and check if we can update it, or have to recreate it.
>>>>>> Aha, thanks. So do I understand correctly that you need to add a
>>>>>> set of routes atomically (either the entire set is installed or nothing)?
>>>>>       Yes.
>>>>>> If so, then I would suggest having 2 lpm and switching them
>>>>>> atomically after a successful addition. As for now, even if you
>>>>>> have enough tbl8's, routes are installed non atomically, i.e. there
>>>>>> will be a time gap between adding two routes, so in this time
>>>>>> interval the table will be inconsistent with the policy.
>>>>>> Also, if new lpm algorithms are added to the DPDK, they won't have
>>>>>> such a thing as tbl8.
>>>>>       Our code already deals with synchronization.
>>> If the application code already deals with synchronization, is it possible to
>> revert back (i.e. delete the routes that got added so far) when the addition
>> of the route-set fails?
>>      The way the code is structured, this would require a significant rewrite
>> because the code assumes that it will succeed since the capacity of the LPM
>> tables was already checked.
>>>>>>>> On 13/10/2020 15:58, Michel Machado wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>>>>>>       We do need fields max_rules and number_tbl8s of struct
>>>>>>>>> rte_lpm, so the removal would force us to have another patch to
>>>>>>>>> our local copy of DPDK. We'd rather avoid this new local patch
>>>>>>>>> because we wish to eventually be in sync with the stock DPDK.
>>>>>>>>>       Those fields are needed in Gatekeeper because we found a
>>>>>>>>> condition in an ongoing deployment in which the entries of some
>>>>>>>>> LPM tables may suddenly change a lot to reflect policy changes.
>>>>>>>>> To avoid getting into a state in which the LPM table is
>>>>>>>>> inconsistent because it cannot fit all the new entries, we
>>>>>>>>> compute the needed parameters to support the new entries, and
>>>>>>>>> compare with the current parameters. If the current table
>>>>>>>>> doesn't fit everything, we have to replace it with a new LPM table.
>>>>>>>>>       If there were a way to obtain the struct rte_lpm_config of
>>>>>>>>> a given LPM table, it would cleanly address our need. We have
>>>>>>>>> the same need in IPv6 and have a local patch to work around it
>>>>>>>>> (see
>> https://github.com/cjdoucette/dpdk/commit/3eaf124a781349b8ec8cd880db
>>>> 26a78115cb8c8f).
>>> I do not see why such an API is not possible, we could add one API that
>> returns max_rules and number_tbl8s (essentially, the config that was passed
>> to rte_lpm_create API).
>>> But, is there a possibility to store that info in the application as that data
>> was passed to rte_lpm from the application?
>>      A suggestion for what this API could look like:
>> void rte_lpm_get_config(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, struct rte_lpm_config
>> *config); void rte_lpm6_get_config(const struct rte_lpm6 *lpm, struct
>> rte_lpm6_config *config);
>>      If the final choice is for not supporting a way to retrieve the config
>> information on the API, we'll look for a place to keep a copy of the
>> parameters in our code.
> IMO, this is not a performance critical path and it is not a difficult solution to store these values in the application. My suggestion is to skip adding the API and store the values in the application.
> Vladimir, what's your opinion?

Agree. Global vars or part of a global configuration could be used here.



  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-15 19:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-07  8:15 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] LPM changes Ruifeng Wang
2020-09-07  8:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lpm: fix free of data structure Ruifeng Wang
2020-09-15 15:55   ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-15 16:25   ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-09-07  8:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lpm: hide internal data Ruifeng Wang
2020-09-15 16:02   ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-15 16:28     ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-09-16  3:17       ` Ruifeng Wang
2020-09-30  8:45         ` Kevin Traynor
2020-10-09  6:54           ` Ruifeng Wang
2020-10-13 13:53             ` Kevin Traynor
2020-10-13 14:58               ` Michel Machado
2020-10-13 15:41                 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-10-13 17:46                   ` Michel Machado
2020-10-13 19:06                     ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-10-13 19:48                       ` Michel Machado
2020-10-14 13:10                         ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-10-14 23:57                           ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-10-15 13:39                             ` Michel Machado
2020-10-15 17:38                               ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-10-15 19:30                                 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir [this message]
2020-10-15 22:54                                   ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-10-16 11:39                                     ` Kevin Traynor
2020-10-16 13:55                                       ` Michel Machado
2020-10-19 14:53                                     ` David Marchand
2020-10-20 14:22                                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-10-20 14:32                                         ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-10-19 17:53             ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-09-15 14:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] LPM changes David Marchand
2020-10-19 13:37   ` Kevin Traynor
2020-10-21  3:02 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Ruifeng Wang
2020-10-21  3:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] lpm: fix free of data structure Ruifeng Wang
2020-10-21  3:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] lpm: hide internal data Ruifeng Wang
2020-10-21  7:58     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-10-21  8:15       ` Ruifeng Wang
2020-10-22 15:14     ` David Marchand
2020-10-23  6:13       ` Ruifeng Wang
2020-10-23 16:08         ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-10-23  9:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] LPM changes David Marchand
2020-10-23  9:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] lpm: fix free of data structure David Marchand
2020-10-23  9:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] lpm: hide internal data David Marchand
2020-10-26  8:26   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] LPM changes David Marchand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=505d3e00-717b-25f8-ffea-d6108165a12a@intel.com \
    --to=vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
    --cc=andre@digirati.com.br \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=doucette@bu.edu \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=mengxiang0811@gmail.com \
    --cc=michel@digirati.com.br \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git