On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:24:43PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 07/27/2016 02:03:25 AM: > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > To: dev@openvswitch.org > > Cc: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > Date: 07/27/2016 02:04 AM > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 5/5] ovsdb-idl: Wake up ovsdb_idl_loop > > when a transaction commits. > > Sent by: "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> > > > > There is a fair amount of code that defers modifying the database when a > > transaction cannot be created (because there is already one outstanding). > > This code tends to assume that the main loop will wake up again when it > > becomes possible again to modify the database, but the actual > ovsdb_id_loop > > implementation only did this if the database had changed. This is too > > conservative a policy and may account for some failures I've seen in > tests. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > --- > > Ben, while I can't tell you to hold up on this if somebody else acks it, > my first thought (after looking at it) is that checking it against the > unit tests cases answers only half of the questions that it needs to > answer. > Since it is changing the cycle time, there is the question of whether it > provides a measurable change in E2E performance. Therefore, with your > indulgence, I'm going to try and throw it into an openstack cloud tomorrow > and run some rally tests against it to see if indeed does result in a > measurable change in performance.
This commit is not supposed to be a performance fix, it's supposed to be a correctness fix. I don't have a really good example of the kind of thing that it fixes so I'm happy to sit on it for a while until I do. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
