On 5 March 2014 11:08, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> That's fine with me.
>
OK, I'll send a fresh revision.
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:03:24AM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 5 March 2014 10:50, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:47:33AM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> > > On 4 March 2014 14:49, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > > If we were to maintain the ukeys hmaps separately, then we wouldn't
>
On 5 March 2014 10:50, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:47:33AM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> > On 4 March 2014 14:49, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > If we were to maintain the ukeys hmaps separately, then we wouldn't
> > > have to have the same number of hmaps as threads. That seems,
> > >
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:47:33AM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 14:49, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > After studying the code for a while, I think I see something odd.
> > Each 'ukeys' hmap is associated with a revalidator thread, but the
> > hmaps have barely any relationship with their
On 4 March 2014 14:49, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> After studying the code for a while, I think I see something odd.
> Each 'ukeys' hmap is associated with a revalidator thread, but the
> hmaps have barely any relationship with their owning thread. Except
> during the "sweep", it's not more likely, for e
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:42:14PM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> From: Ethan Jackson
>
> Previously, we had a separate flow_dumper thread that fetched flows from
> the datapath to distribute to revalidator threads. This patch takes the
> logic for dumping and pushes it into the revalidator threads
