| .. _marknsweep: |
| |
| Mark and Sweep |
| -------------- |
| |
| The mark and sweep procedures, in FIB and in other subsystems, are |
| built for the purpose of recovering from a control plane crash. |
| |
| In routing if the control plane (CP) crashes, when it restarts, the network |
| topology may have changed. This means that some of the routes that |
| were programmed in the FIB may no longer be needed, and perhaps some |
| new ones are. If the CP were simply to insert all the new routes it |
| learned after it restarts, then FIB could be left with old routes that |
| never get removed, this would be bigly bad. |
| |
| At a high level the requirement is to delete routes from the old set |
| that are not present in the new set; 'delete the diff' as it might |
| be colloquially known. |
| |
| How should the control plane determine the old set? It could |
| conceivably read back the FIB from VPP. But this presents two |
| problems, firstly, it could be a large set of routes, numbering in the |
| millions, this is not an efficient mechanism and not one one wants to |
| perform at a point when the router is trying to converge |
| ASAP. Secondly it represents a 'source of truth' inversion. The |
| routing plane is the source of truth, not forwarding. Routing should |
| not receive its 'input' from the layers below. Thirdly, on a practical |
| note, the reading of VPP data structures to glean this sort of |
| accurate information, would only happen in this scenario, i.e. it's |
| not well tested and therefore not particularly reliable (see point 2). |
| |
| Enter 'mark and sweep' or m-n-s (not to be confused with the retail |
| giant) as it's affectionately known. |
| |
| The Mark and Sweep algorithm proceeds in three steps: |
| |
| - Step 1; the CP declares to VPP that it wants to begin the process |
| (i.e. it has just restarted). At this point VPP will iterate through |
| all the objects that the CP owns and 'mark' then as being |
| stale. This process effectively declares a new 'epoch', a barrier in |
| time that separates the old objects from the new. |
| - Step 2; The CP downloads all of its new objects. If one of these new |
| CP objects matches (has the same key as) an existing object, then |
| the CP add is considered an update, and the object's stale state is |
| removed. |
| - Step 3: The CP declares it has 'converged'; it has no more updates |
| to give (at this time). VPP will then again iterate through all the |
| CP's objects and remove those that do not belong to the new epoch, |
| i.e. those that are still marked stale. |
| |
| After step 3, the CP and VPP databases are in sync. |
| |
| The cost of the process was to download all the new routes again. This |
| is a highly-tuned and well-tested scenario. |
| |
| In VPP we use the synonym 'replace' to describe the mark-n-sweep |
| action in the API. We use this term because it refers to the goals of |
| the algorithm at a high level - the CP wants to replace the old DB |
| with a new one - but it does not specify the algorithm by which that |
| is achieved. One could equally perform this task by constructing a |
| brand new DB in VPP, and then swapping them when the CP |
| converges. Other subsystems may employ that approach, but FIB does |
| not. Updates are typically faster than adds, since the update is |
| likely a no-op, whereas a separate add would require the memory |
| allocator, which is the long pole in FIB additions. Additionally, it requires |
| twice the memory for a moment in time, which could be prohibitive when |
| the FIB is large. |
| |