> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:06:11PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi 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)
>
> Originally, dpif-netdev preferred DPIF_UC_MISS over DPIF_UC_ACTION
> because we were very concerned that flow setups always take place as
> quickly as possible and that anything else was secondary. However, a
> lot has changed since then, and these days it seems reasonable to try to
> better balance the various kinds of packet handling. In particular,
> starving all actions in the presence of any flow misses doesn't seem
> like a great idea. There might be a better balance than the one in this
> patch, but I'm willing to let that come out in testing.
thanks for explanation.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
