Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 05:33:58PM CET, d...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >On 12/28/17 10:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> So there are 4 tables exported to userspace: >>> >>> 1. mlxsw_erif table which is not in any of the kvd regions (no resource >>> path is given) and it has a size of 1000. Does mlxsw_erif mean a rif as >>> in Router Interfaces? So the switch supports up to 1000 router interfaces. >>> >>> 2. mlxsw_host4 in /kvd/hash_single with a size of 62. Based on the >> Size tells you the actual size. It cannot give you max size. The reason >> is simple. The resources are shared among multiple tables. That is >> exactly what this resource patch makes visible. >> >> > >In the erif table, the 1000 is the max not current usage. I do not have
I believe that is a bug in erif dpipe implementation (mlxsw_sp_dpipe_table_erif_size_get) We'll fix that. Thanks! >1000 interfaces: > >$ ip -br li sh | wc -l >597 > > >$ devlink dpipe table dump pci/0000:03:00.0 name mlxsw_erif >... > index 503 > match_value: > type field_exact header mlxsw_meta field erif_port mapping ifindex >mapping_value 601 value 503 > action_value: > type field_modify header mlxsw_meta field l3_forward value 1 > > >The host4 table it is current size with no maximum. > >The meaning of table size needs to be consistent across tables.
