Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net/sched: Introduce skb hash classifier

[Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 4:41 PM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting idea. Note: my experience is that typical setup is
> to have only one of those (from offload perspective). Ariel,
> are your use cases requiring say both fields?
>
>  From policy perspective, i think above will get more complex
> mostly because you have to deal with either mark or hash
> being optional. It also opens doors for more complex matching
> requirements. Example "match mark X AND hash Y" and
> "match mark X OR hash Y".
> The new classifier will have to deal with that semantic.
>
> With fw and hash being the complex/optional semantics are easy:
>
> "match mark X AND hash Y":
> $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle X
> skbhash flowid 1:12 action continue
> $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 handle Y fw
> flowid 1:12 action ok
>
> "match mark X OR hash Y":
> $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle X
> skbhash flowid 1:12 action ok
> $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 handle Y fw
> flowid 1:12 action ok

Not sure if I get you correctly, but with a combined implementation
you can do above too, right? Something like:

(AND case)
$TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle 1
skb hash Y mark X flowid 1:12 action ok

(OR case)
$TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle 1
skb hash Y flowid 1:12 action ok
$TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 handle 2
skb mark X flowid 1:12 action ok

Side note: you don't have to use handle as the value of hash/mark,
which gives people freedom to choose different handles.


>
> Then the question is how to implement? is it one hash table for
> both or two(one for mark and one for hash), etc.
>

Good question. I am not sure, maybe no hash table at all?
Unless there are a lot of filters, we do not have to organize
them in a hash table, do we?

Thanks.