On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:15:47PM -0700, Chris Hydon wrote: > On 2014-04-03 4:00 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 03:56:44PM -0700, Chris Hydon wrote: > >>It looks like your change also fixes the problem, and I don't see > >>any bugs. I agree entirely: the current code is needlessly complex! > >>My only comment is that with your change, for long messages up to > >>twice as much is read from the socket as before. If 50 was a > >>strategically chosen value, the number of loops maybe ought to be > >>reduced to 25, otherwise this is not an issue. > >The previous value was arbitrary. I chose it to be big enough to get > >a significant amount of work done in one call, but not so big that a > >single connection could soak up all the CPU and prevent other work > >from getting done. > Then I see no issues. > > >I'll push this to master in a little while. Is this causing trouble > >for you on any particular branch? I'm willing to backport it to older > >versions, since that should be trivial. > Thanks, but we're actually using a fairly old version right now - we > maintain a small set of patches specific to our needs anyway, so we > can just include this patch and then drop it when we finally do > upgrade.
OK, sounds good. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
