Hey Yamamoto,
I discussed this with Ben, we want to give it a try. If there is fairness
issue, we will address it.
Also, there should not be a hard priority of DPIF_UC_MISS over
DPIF_UC_ACTION.
The find_nonempty_queue() should return in a round-robin fashion if both
queues
are non-empty.
Thanks,
Alex Wang,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp>wrote:
> > @@ -1452,32 +1507,18 @@ dpif_netdev_queue_to_priority(const struct dpif
> *dpif OVS_UNUSED,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct dp_netdev_queue *
> > -find_nonempty_queue(struct dp_netdev *dp)
> > - OVS_REQUIRES(dp->queue_mutex)
> > -{
> > - int i;
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < N_QUEUES; i++) {
> > - struct dp_netdev_queue *q = &dp->queues[i];
> > - if (q->head != q->tail) {
> > - return q;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - return NULL;
> > -}
>
> what's the rationale to remove DPIF_UC_MISS's precedence over
> DPIF_UC_ACTION?
> (just a curious question)
>
> YAMAMOTO Takashi
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
