Hi,
I have read the code by comparing the call stack of the core files
carefully, and found
a potential race condition. Please confirm whether the following 3 threads
have a race condition. Just did some code trace, can such
race condition happen?
* PMD thread1 ===
On 26 Feb 2024, at 9:33, LIU Yulong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have read the code by comparing the call stack of the core files
> carefully, and found
> a potential race condition. Please confirm whether the following 3 threads
> have a race condition. Just did some code trace, can such
> race condition
Hi Eelco,
Thank you for the quick response.
I did not add those logs, because in order to reproduce the issue, we
have to send lots of packets to the host.
So there are too many ukeys created/deleted to do logging.
And can we ensure that this [1] is the only place for ovs to free the ukey?
[1]
On 26 Feb 2024, at 11:10, LIU Yulong wrote:
> Hi Eelco,
>
> Thank you for the quick response.
>
> I did not add those logs, because in order to reproduce the issue, we
> have to send lots of packets to the host.
> So there are too many ukeys created/deleted to do logging.
Maybe a circular buffe
On 2/26/24 11:20, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2024, at 11:10, LIU Yulong wrote:
>
>> Hi Eelco,
>>
>> Thank you for the quick response.
>>
>> I did not add those logs, because in order to reproduce the issue, we
>> have to send lots of packets to the host.
>> So there are too many ukeys
I see... Thanks a lot for the quick clarification!
Thanks & Best Regards,
RS
On Thu, 22 Feb, 2024, 11:18 am Ilya Maximets, wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:03, Reshma Sreekumar wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I see similar behaviour for *ovs-internal* ports as well. My
> understanding is that,
> > ovs-internal
Hi Ilya and everyone,
I'm interested in obtaining further insight into the technical
rationale behind the automatic removal of ingress qdiscs for OVS
internal ports.
I.e. it's no doubt that ovs internal ports are managed by ovs, however
since internal ports are something different than external po
On 2/26/24 17:40, Mikhail Sennikovsky wrote:
> Hi Ilya and everyone,
>
> I'm interested in obtaining further insight into the technical
> rationale behind the automatic removal of ingress qdiscs for OVS
> internal ports.
> I.e. it's no doubt that ovs internal ports are managed by ovs, however
> si
@Ilya, thank you, I will add that patch.
@Eelco, thank you again, I will add a RL log to the free(ukey). Hope
we can get something useful.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:55 PM Ilya Maximets wrote:
>
> On 2/26/24 11:20, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 26 Feb 2024, at 11:10, LIU Yulong wrote:
> >
@Eelco, as you suggested, added such circular buffer to my local OVS:
https://github.com/gotostack/ovs/commit/939d88c3c5fcdb446b01f2afa8f1e80c3929db46
gdb shows such data structure:
2232 ukey_free_buffer.index = (ukey_free_buffer.index + 1) % (1024
* 1024); // Circular buffer
(gdb) p ukey_fre
On 27 Feb 2024, at 4:44, LIU Yulong wrote:
> @Eelco, as you suggested, added such circular buffer to my local OVS:
> https://github.com/gotostack/ovs/commit/939d88c3c5fcdb446b01f2afa8f1e80c3929db46
I should also add allocate logging, or else you might not know if a buffer was
allocated at the
11 matches
Mail list logo
