Thanks Pravin,
> > > This patch also significantly simplifies the flow miss handling > > code and brings slight improvement to flow setup rate. > > > Hi Alex, > > I have couple of high level comments: > > 1. Are we trying to solve fairness here? If yes then how does it work > for tunnel ports? If not then this is about only removing dispatcher. > Therefore can we have a per datapath pool of pids rather than per > vport? > This is only about removing dispatcher. But we want to try addressing the fairness issue in userspace based on this implementation. The pids per vport implementation provides per port fairness. If we use a pids pool, the starvation may happen in the kernel (since the upcall from different vport may go to the same pid). And we need some fair queueing scheme in the kernel. I think we want to avoid such complexity in kernel. 2. In any case we need to handle OVS_VPORT_ATTR_UPCALL_PID attribute > in kernel. Since it is kernel interface. > > I didn't follow. Do you mean we need this to pass in the nl_sock pid? > Thanks. >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
