On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:46:55AM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:42:50AM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:07:28PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > Linux has an internal queue that temporarily holds packets transmitted > > > > to > > > > certain network devices. If too many packets are transmitted to such > > > > network devices within a single list of actions, then packets tend to > > > > get > > > > dropped. Broadcast or flooded or multicast packets on bridges with > > > > thousands of ports are examples of how this can occur. > > > > > > > > This commit avoids the problem by implementing a flow in userspace when > > > > it > > > > outputs its packet more times than the maximum length of the queue. > > > > > > > > CC: Flavio Leitner <f...@redhat.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > The code looks good to me. > > > > > > I used netdev_max_backlog = 110 here and I was able to go all > > > the 4k ports in the test. Without the patch, the failure starts > > > with 112 ports. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Acked-by: Flavio Leitner <f...@redhat.com> > > > > Thank you for testing! I forgot to mention that I tested that the code > > correctly read the netdev_max_backlog value but that I did not test that > > it actually avoided the problem, so I am pleased to hear that it did. > > > > I added your ack and also a Tested-by: since you tested it, and applied > > this to master. > > Thanks, could you please push it to branch-2.3 as well?
Done. > Or how do you actually prefer? Requests like this one or > backported patches posted to the list? A request is usually good enough for me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
