Thanks for getting back to me. It would be good to try both if at all possible. 2nd patch is probably closer to what I plan to post for the 'net' tree.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Flavio Leitner <f...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > I built a test package with your previous patch to Joe, but > we need to schedule an appropriate time to test it, so it's > a bit slow on that front. > > Having said that, which patch do you think is better to try first? > > Thanks, > fbl > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: >> Hi, Joe, >> >> This is potentially a better fix that I'd like to propose for the >> 'net' tree. It would be great if you can test it in your set up to >> see if it solved the issue you are facing with. >> >> Thanks, >> >> andy >> >> diff --git a/datapath/actions.c b/datapath/actions.c >> index c529bbb..208eb30 100644 >> --- a/datapath/actions.c >> +++ b/datapath/actions.c >> @@ -1003,11 +1003,11 @@ int ovs_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp, >> struct sk_buff *skb, >> err = do_execute_actions(dp, skb, key, >> acts->actions, acts->actions_len); >> >> - if (!level) >> - process_deferred_actions(dp); >> - >> this_cpu_dec(exec_actions_level); >> >> + if (level <= 1) >> + process_deferred_actions(dp); >> + >> /* This return status currently does not reflect the errors >> * encounted during deferred actions execution. Probably needs to >> * be fixed in the future. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joe Talerico <jtale...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> When using balance-tcp bonding with OVS we were seeing ARP issues when we >> >> reached ~ 100 guests. I Tracked as much as possible here : >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267291 >> >> >> >> Has anyone seen this behavior before? >> >> >> >> Switching to active/backup resolves the issue. >> > >> > Thanks for reporting the issue with lots of relevant information. I >> > have not seen this issue before. >> > One the error messages in the bugzilla report suggested that you may >> > ran into the deferred action fifo limit. >> > >> > Would you please try to increase its size with the following patch, >> > and report back how much it helped. This changes OVS kernel module, so >> > you will have to recompile the kernel module. >> > >> > This is not like the right fix, but should help to confirm if there >> > are any other issues in the way to get your set up working. >> > >> > diff --git a/datapath/actions.c b/datapath/actions.c >> > index c529bbb..a4afecb 100644 >> > --- a/datapath/actions.c >> > +++ b/datapath/actions.c >> > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ struct deferred_action { >> > struct sw_flow_key pkt_key; >> > }; >> > >> > -#define DEFERRED_ACTION_FIFO_SIZE 10 >> > +#define DEFERRED_ACTION_FIFO_SIZE 100 >> > struct action_fifo { >> > int head; >> > int tail; >> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
