[ovs-dev] Flow Control and Port Mirroring Revisited

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 06:31:55PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:23:58AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:38:01PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [ snip ]
> >> > >
> >> > > I know that everyone likes a nice netperf result but I agree with
> >> > > Michael that this probably isn't the right question to be asking.  I
> >> > > don't think that socket buffers are a real solution to the flow
> >> > > control problem: they happen to provide that functionality but it's
> >> > > more of a side effect than anything.  It's just that the amount of
> >> > > memory consumed by packets in the queue(s) doesn't really have any
> >> > > implicit meaning for flow control (think multiple physical adapters,
> >> > > all with the same speed instead of a virtual device and a physical
> >> > > device with wildly different speeds).  The analog in the physical
> >> > > world that you're looking for would be Ethernet flow control.
> >> > > Obviously, if the question is limiting CPU or memory consumption then
> >> > > that's a different story.
> >> >
> >> > Point taken. I will see if I can control CPU (and thus memory) consumption
> >> > using cgroups and/or tc.
> >>
> >> I have found that I can successfully control the throughput using
> >> the following techniques
> >>
> >> 1) Place a tc egress filter on dummy0
> >>
> >> 2) Use ovs-ofctl to add a flow that sends skbs to dummy0 and then eth1,
> >>    this is effectively the same as one of my hacks to the datapath
> >>    that I mentioned in an earlier mail. The result is that eth1
> >>    "paces" the connection.
> >
> > Further to this, I wonder if there is any interest in providing
> > a method to switch the action order - using ovs-ofctl is a hack imho -
> > and/or switching the default action order for mirroring.
> 
> I'm not sure that there is a way to do this that is correct in the
> generic case.  It's possible that the destination could be a VM while
> packets are being mirrored to a physical device or we could be
> multicasting or some other arbitrarily complex scenario.  Just think
> of what a physical switch would do if it has ports with two different
> speeds.

Yes, I have considered that case. And I agree that perhaps there
is no sensible default. But perhaps we could make it configurable somehow?