> On Nov 24, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:25:47PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:10:35PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:10:49PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>>>>> When modifying an existing datapath flow with recirculation actions,
>>>>>> the references to old (if any) recirculation actions need to be freed,
>>>>>> and references to new recirculation actions need to be stored.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Here, it wasn't obvious to me why the logic changed from only allocating
>>>>> a recirc_id if we have a packet, to always allocating one (don't we
>>>>> still need to reuse the recirc id from a previous translation?):
>>>> 
>>>> The separation of the packet (upcall) and no packet (revalidation) was
>>>> suitable before we added the support for modifying datapath flows
>>>> in-place, when only actions change. Before, when doing revalidation
>>>> the produced actions were only used for comparison, but now they can
>>>> also be used as a replacement for the old datapath actions. This is
>>>> why we now need to allocate and hold a reference to a recirculation
>>>> context also when revalidating. The reference will be freed if the
>>>> actions are freed without installing them to an existing flow. Also,
>>>> the recirc_alloc_id_ctx() will reuse existing recirculation contexts
>>>> (and adding a reference) if possible. I’ll update the comment to
>>>> mention this.
>>> 
>>> If we always allocate a new recirc id, does that mean that the
>>> revalidated flow will always differ from the original one?
>> 
>> recirc_alloc_id_ctx() will reuse existing recirculation contexts (and adding 
>> a reference) if possible, so it will return the same recirculation Id if the 
>> post-recirculation processing will be the same. This already makes it 
>> possible for two different upcall paths to get the same recirculation ID and 
>> to share the same post-recirculation flow.
> 
> Thanks for walking me through it.
> 
> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>

Thanks for taking the time to ask the questions. Pushed to master,

  Jarno


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to