On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:50:13AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:25:39AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote: > >> If there is a lot of churn in creation and deletion of > >> interfaces, we may end up recycling the ofport value of a > >> recently deleted interface for a newly created interface. > >> This may result in an old stale openflow rule applying > >> on the newly created interface. > >> > >> With this commit, when a new port is added, try and provide > >> it an ofport value that has not been used during the current > >> run. If such value does not exist, provide the least > >> recently used ofport value. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Gurucharan Shetty <gshe...@nicira.com>
> > I wonder whether we should consider sufficiently old entries (an hour, a > > day) to be expired. > I had thought about it. Consider a case where someone is testing OVS with > adding and deleting interfaces continuously. Initially, he would not have any > problems adding his interfaces, but as the test continues, the number of > interfaces that can be created decreases and I felt that can be confusing. > > With the current implementation, since we have ~65,000 ofport options, > it feels unlikely that > we can actually use a very recently deleted interface soon in a real > world use case. I meant something a little different. I agree that it is good to be able to reuse a recently deleted interface if there is no other choice. I was thinking of a different case. Suppose that we have a system with only a moderate rate of interface addition and deletion. At 1/minute, after 45 days of uptime we will have used all the port numbers once, which means that every port addition after that needs to examine all 64k possible ports. But I think it's fine to just leave that until it shows itself as a real problem. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
