On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 07:32:36PM +0400, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:37:58PM +0400, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Andrey Korolyov <and...@xdel.ru> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:12:28PM +0400, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> >>>> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:05:01PM +0400, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > >> >>>> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> >>>> >> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 07:55:01PM +0400, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > >> >>>> >> >> ovs-ofctl dump-ports currently reporting values not large than > >> >>>> >> >> u32 in > >> >>>> >> >> the mentioned branch. lib/ofp-util.c has no regressions at a > >> >>>> >> >> glance, > >> >>>> >> >> probably truncation going in the different (not so obvious) way. > >> >>>> >> > > >> >>>> >> > Are you using a 64-bit kernel? There is some unavoidable > >> >>>> >> > truncation > >> >>>> >> > with 32-bit kernels. > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> Yes, of course. > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > Thanks. I guess you must have previously seen 64-bit values with > >> >>>> > some > >> >>>> > earlier version. Do you know what the most recent version was? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> For 0fe1d7f39de9836fea01c560a6fdbfd1405096ea it is clearly positive > >> >>>> that it reports 64-bit counter values (branch-2.1). Had not tested > >> >>>> against other revisions yet. Are you suggesting that the counter > >> >>>> behavior with 32b limit is currently taken as a right one? > >> >>> > >> >>> I am trying to narrow down the range of commits that could have caused > >> >>> the problem. "git bisect" would be the ideal way to do it, if you are > >> >>> willing and able to try it. > >> >> > >> >> Heh, okay. I`m signing over bisection, please give me some time :) > >> > > >> > Thanks a lot. > >> > >> > >> The bad cast introduced by 04c881eb6441fff2e91c9b9e23502bc554c0f437. > > > > That patch only adds assignments of 64-bit integers to 64-bit integers. > > No casts or conversions are involved. > > > > Looking more closely, I think the problem here is that even 64-bit > > kernels always pass IFLA_STATS to userspace using 32-bit integers. > > Usersspace needs to look at IFLA_STATS64, instead, when it is present, > > but there is currently no code to do that. > > > Thanks Ben. How big is an inaccuracy impact from calculation in a > legacy (regarding to this patch) manner with enabled offloads, if you > have such information?
It would depend on the size of the packets being offloaded. A 64 kB TCP packet would be offloaded into over 40 1500-byte on-wire frames, so in the worst case the packet count could be off by a factor of about 40. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
