[dpdk-dev] perfomance of rte_lpm rule subsystem

Vladimir Medvedkin medvedkinv at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 22:46:56 CEST 2016


Hi Alexander,

Why next_hop is 64 bit long?


2016-04-19 18:46 GMT+03:00 Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:11:11 +0300
> Александр Киселев <kiselev99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Regards,
Vladimir


More information about the dev mailing list