qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 1/2] COLO-compare: Optimize tcp compare for o


From: Jason Wang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 1/2] COLO-compare: Optimize tcp compare for option field
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:43:27 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0



On 2017年04月18日 10:20, Zhang Chen wrote:
In this patch we support packet that have tcp options field.
Add tcp options field check, If the packet have options
field we just skip it and compare tcp payload,
Avoid unnecessary checkpoint, optimize performance.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <address@hidden>
---
  net/colo-compare.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/colo-compare.c b/net/colo-compare.c
index aada04e..049f6f8 100644
--- a/net/colo-compare.c
+++ b/net/colo-compare.c
@@ -248,7 +248,32 @@ static int colo_packet_compare_tcp(Packet *spkt, Packet 
*ppkt)
          spkt->ip->ip_sum = ppkt->ip->ip_sum;
      }
- if (ptcp->th_sum == stcp->th_sum) {
+    /*
+     * Check tcp header length for tcp option field.
+     * th_off > 5 means this tcp packet have options field.
+     * The tcp options maybe always different.
+     * for example:
+     * From RFC 7323.
+     * TCP Timestamps option (TSopt):
+     * Kind: 8
+     *
+     * Length: 10 bytes
+     *
+     *    +-------+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
+     *    |Kind=8 |  10   |   TS Value (TSval)  |TS Echo Reply (TSecr)|
+     *    +-------+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
+     *       1       1              4                     4
+     *
+     * In this case the primary guest's timestamp always different with
+     * the secondary guest's timestamp. COLO just focus on payload,
+     * so we just need skip this field.h

Probably a good explanation why we can skip this kind of header. But it does not explain why we can skip all the rest?

Thanks

+     */
+    if (ptcp->th_off > 5) {
+        ptrdiff_t tcp_offset;
+        tcp_offset = ppkt->transport_header - (uint8_t *)ppkt->data
+                     + (ptcp->th_off * 4);
+        res = colo_packet_compare_common(ppkt, spkt, tcp_offset);
+    } else if (ptcp->th_sum == stcp->th_sum) {
          res = colo_packet_compare_common(ppkt, spkt, ETH_HLEN);
      } else {
          res = -1;




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]