From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kiselev99@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D72C2946
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:11:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 127so4068078wmz.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 04:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to;
 bh=iE/v4RmIabl3IakPvddLMqmXXKeGe3j/8WOxW7wk9s8=;
 b=aP+mMPdFjJ8RYAagdKs3VNOcXD1G3oCYmx8wNXHRr9tkWCswkMYmbyaacGUt0pofdC
 LCpSBZGOmndj/G+yTq+8YNgkKYMM+cGjtpGK/6J+ifUfKUaXwHqhmY/qJhBH54HwaC5J
 wLsmsnzKB5SDC3wU6822RZ6hhEh7tvPqA5SgavbuOQ2MipEgcWWp/SYq1VRDWG0nfV7n
 CcKNGM4F3HsnkDKn/fS4dms2AoJA8Eza8YU7uhMGxLWEYCZeeBFDb6rujgQyPGwt+/J8
 JLP5jUu0hvEBi3e1fu6j7DisAND4GwPewhm4KuWLlMWk5zpJhFEDdU5A4YOrUiz5JCnG
 3Nig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to;
 bh=iE/v4RmIabl3IakPvddLMqmXXKeGe3j/8WOxW7wk9s8=;
 b=frgtU3TJSmxzB1GrSNq68scSSNRZ2I2IdjWZiandJrWT2YS3ZY/W3JYWyy7x07Rlez
 fC9y7Hc5F7V8/iPVmpV5JN3Rr5fRHPsQS+PaCGk+pKP56REi/QS60XN7g0evAj1YLuNq
 cVGx4d9mqPtWHYlgP8UqPsEJmr8srsVo6Ag1dmQCxo9HxHcGFHh+rmveXk29oDG6+dTO
 m/I8g+fx3rYhjPkBm51HCiL12Kcr5tfoVXeDJkgLWOOtnjxLq2w2IvssHFTXJfx/Lqgi
 uW06Qg2uGqPCJaTHsh+Y6MWB7Kll92uzdJTSIRfdstE7WUQEM2mHmsqOVDmgm3rCbmS0
 8isA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV9+s0C8zcA+zGXFi81sOX9667tQPUx7LUiPynxJE3EVEPT2QuBri7FmThjYzZiWacr1zSy7+M2FYcL8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.147.135 with SMTP id v129mr22505729wmd.65.1461064271414; 
 Tue, 19 Apr 2016 04:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.19.134 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 04:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:11:11 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMKNYbzETqi3UJkdvMAcdoLVWx_3MQUiDxnmBrWT_49w5tXKRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?0JDQu9C10LrRgdCw0L3QtNGAINCa0LjRgdC10LvQtdCy?=
 <kiselev99@gmail.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:11:11 -0000

Hi.

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 "rule"
subsystem.

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:

rte_lpm2_create

rule_find
rule_add
rule_delete
find_previous_rule
delete_depth_small
delete_depth_big

rte_lpm2_add
rte_lpm2_delete
rte_lpm2_is_rule_present
rte_lpm2_delete_all


P.S. the patch was made for 2.2.0 version.
P.P.S. Would it be more convinient to include full source file instead of
patch?