Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] flow_dissector: dissect tunnel info

[Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:07:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:52:54PM CEST, tom@herbertland.com wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> >> Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:08:57AM CEST, simon.horman@netronome.com wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:17:46AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> wrote:
> >>>> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:37:55PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >>>> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> > Move dissection of tunnel info from the flower classifier to the flow
> >>>> >> > dissector where all other dissection occurs.  This should not have any
> >>>> >> > behavioural affect on other users of the flow dissector.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ...
> >>>>
> >>>> > I feel that we are circling back the perennial issue of flower using the
> >>>> > flow dissector in a somewhat broader/different way than many/all other
> >>>> > users of the flow dissector.
> >>>> >
> >>>> Simon,
> >>>>
> >>>> It's more like __skb_flow_dissect is already an incredibly complex
> >>>> function and because of that it's difficult to maintain. We need to
> >>>> measure changes against that fact. For this patch, there is precisely
> >>>> one user (cls_flower.c) and it's not at all clear to me if there will
> >>>> be ever any more (e.g. for hashing we don't need tunnel info). IMO, it
> >>>> should be just as easy and less convolution for everyone to have
> >>>> flower call __skb_flow_dissect_tunnel_info directly and not call if
> >>>> from __skb_flow_dissect.
> >>>
> >>>Hi Tom,
> >>>
> >>>my original suggestion was just that, but Jiri indicated a strong preference
> >>>for the approach taken by this patch. I think we need to widen the
> >>>participants in this discussion.
> >>
> >> I like the __skb_flow_dissect to be the function to call and it will do
> >> the job according to the configuration. I don't like to split in
> >> multiple calls.
> >
> >Those are not technical arguments. As I already mentioned, I don't
> >like it when we add stuff for the benefit of a 1% use case that
> >negatively impacts the rest of the 99% cases which is what I believe
> >is happening here.
> 
> Yeah. I just wanted the flow dissector to stay compact. But if needed,
> could be split. I just fear that it will become a mess that's all.
> 
> 
> >
> >> Does not make sense in the most of the cases as the
> >> dissection state would have to be carried in between calls.
> >
> >Please elaborate. This code is being moved into __skb_flow_dissect, so
> >the functionality was already there. I don't see any description in
> >this discussion that things were broken and that this patch is a
> >necessary fix.
> 
> Yeah, you are right.

Hi Tom, Hi Jiri,

I'm happy to make a patch to move the call to
__skb_flow_dissect_tunnel_info() from __skb_flow_dissect() to
fl_classify(). It seems that approach has been agreed on above.