> On 7 Sep 2026, at 7:59 PM, Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
> CAUTION: External Email
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>
> On 9/7/26 4:12 PM, Naveen Yerramneni wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Sep 2026, at 4:33 PM, Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>
>>> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>>>
>>> On 9/7/26 11:22 AM, Naveen Yerramneni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 4 Sep 2026, at 8:33 PM, Numan Siddique <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>>>
>>>>> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 7:31 AM Ales Musil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 4:33 PM Naveen Yerramneni
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 Sep 2026, at 6:51 PM, Ales Musil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 12:56 PM Naveen Yerramneni
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2 Sep 2026, at 2:31 PM, Ales Musil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 10:46 AM Naveen Yerramneni
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Sep 2026, at 12:53 PM, Ales Musil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 9:03 AM Naveen Yerramneni
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Sep 2026, at 11:55 AM, Ales Musil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 7:16 PM Naveen Yerramneni
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl enqueues PACKET_OUT and NXT_RESUME messages on rconn.txq
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> no limit. A PACKET_IN storm (ARP, ND, etc.) could grow the queue
>>>>>>>>>>> without bound and use a large amount of memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Limit PACKET_IN driven PACKET_OUT and NXT_RESUME messages to 8192.
>>>>>>>>>>> Overflows are counted by the pinctrl_drop_rconn_overflow coverage
>>>>>>>>>>> counter. The limit does not apply to OpenFlow session control
>>>>>>>>>>> messages,
>>>>>>>>>>> MAC-binding buffered resumes, health-check probes, BFD and other
>>>>>>>>>>> controller originated packets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Aditya Mehakare <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Assisted-by: Cursor Grok 4.6, Cursor
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Naveen Yerramneni <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Naveen,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ales,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for the patch. I don't think this is the right approach to
>>>>>>>>>>> solve any issues described above. This puts hard limit on the queue
>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot be controlled in any way by the user. Also all of the
>>>>>>>>>>> actions except for handle_dhcpv6_reply, which we could easily fix,
>>>>>>>>>>> have CoPP meter associated with it. So you can avoid the mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>> issues with proper CoPP configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In general if any pinctrl action can cause control plane issues we
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> have CoPP for it, if not we should add one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree CoPP helps in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I still think the pinctrl send queue should be bounded, whether or
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> CoPP is enabled. CoPP is optional and off by default. If an ARP
>>>>>>>>>> flood to a non-existent IP happens with CoPP unset, pinctrl can
>>>>>>>>>> enqueue packets without limit and ovn-controller can run out of
>>>>>>>>>> memory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that should be the case, even if we add another config,
>>>>>>>>>> you will end up in the same situation as with CoPP. You will have
>>>>>>>>>> config that can protect you, which is disabled by default so it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> help without configuring it first. Also, since this is a new
>>>>>>>>>> feature, it
>>>>>>>>>> would mean 27.03, while CoPP has been available for a while. For
>>>>>>>>>> CoPP there is no upgrade needed or anything, just configuration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The proposal is to enable the pinctrl TX queue limit by default
>>>>>>>>> (8192). I think that is a reasonable default for the majority of
>>>>>>>>> deployments. A new Open_vSwitch:external_ids option would only let
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> user change that value, similar to OVS controller-queue-size
>>>>>>>>> (default 100). So the protection does not require extra configuration
>>>>>>>>> or a CMS change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that is problematic, we cannot add a default restriction to
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> that wasn't restricted before. This applies anywhere in general,
>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>> 8k might be reasonable we can't be certain it indeed is for every
>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>> What if ovn runs on small system? We might run out of memory anyway.
>>>>>>>>> Or, on the opposite end, for a large system, we would artificially
>>>>>>>>> limit the
>>>>>>>>> throughput. That's why it has to be opt-in, with the default
>>>>>>>>> remaining what
>>>>>>>>> it was before the change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should avoid unbounded packet queues in general to avoid
>>>>>>>>> unbounded memory use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is why we have CoPP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CoPP controls the ingress PACKET_IN rate. If the rconn unix socket
>>>>>>>> is not draining for any reason, PACKET_OUT still piles up on
>>>>>>>> rconn.txq on the controller side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CoPP is directly proportional to packet-out in most of the
>>>>>>>> cases. But that wasn't the original problem description,
>>>>>>>> packet-in storm can be managed by CoPP. ovs-vswitchd not
>>>>>>>> draining for whatever reason is a different problem entirely.
>>>>>>>> In that case there is bigger problem, and sure limiting the
>>>>>>>> queue might help to mitigate that, but it would have to apply
>>>>>>>> to all packets that we send out of pinctrl, not just some
>>>>>>>> chosen ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Ales,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Naveen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The original issue we hit was with ARP. CoPP would help in that
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While analysing the issue we thought it is better to avoid unbounded
>>>>>>> queues whether CoPP is enabled or not. The patch only limited
>>>>>>> to packets sent in response to PACKET_IN. The goal is to restrict
>>>>>>> all packet types. I think a bounded queue is a useful extra
>>>>>>> safety layer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shall I send a v2 that includes all packet types and makes the
>>>>>>> limit configurable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we should add yet another config option at the moment,
>>>>>> as I don't see it as that big of deal. You can still monitor ovs-vswitchd
>>>>>> or ovn to figure out if ovs-vswitchd is stuck. Of course I would love to
>>>>>> hear the opinions of other maintainers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say we add this config knob in OVN to limit the queue. What is the
>>>>> behaviour of ovs-vswitchd in this case ? Will it keep sending the
>>>>> packet-ins to the controller if CoPP is not enabled ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if this is already answered above.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Numan,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hi Dumitru,
>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, OVS-vswitchd keeps sending packet-ins if CoPP is not enabled.
>>>> This new option is to restrict the rconn tx queue limit on the controller
>>>> side so that
>>>> not too many packets gets queued up in the extreme cases which can lead to
>>>> high
>>>> memory consumption or OOM situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, if we're only limiting packet-in -> packet-out rconn messages, I'm
>>> all for using CoPP for that, I really think that's the only good way of
>>> addressing those.
>>>
>>> Now, if the worry is packets that are originated by ovn-controller,
>>> e.g., periodic GARPs or ARP refresh packets then _maybe_ we can discuss.
>>>
>>> Although, the premise of the problem was:
>>>
>>> "CoPP disabled and/or packets not covered by CoPP cannot be sent because
>>> ovs-vswitchd is not draining its side of the rconn queue".
>>>
>>> And I agree with Ales, the whole deployment probably has a lot of issues
>>> if that's the case. Most likely, instead of adding a relatively
>>> targeted new config knob, the CMS should probably just monitor rconn
>>> statistics and alert the users of the real problem: ovs-vswitchd not
>>> draining the rconn queue.
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this and sharing your inputs.
>>
>> I still think it is unsafe to have unbound packet queues in the system by
>> default.
>> I agree generating alerts will be definitely useful but I think that have to
>> be
>> based on tail drops (once queue is full) in this particular case.
>>
>
> E.g., on rconn_overflow?
>
> int
> rconn_send_with_limit(struct rconn *rc, struct ofpbuf *b,
> struct rconn_packet_counter *counter, int queue_limit)
> OVS_EXCLUDED(rc->mutex)
> {
> int error;
>
> ovs_mutex_lock(&rc->mutex);
> if (rconn_packet_counter_n_packets(counter) < queue_limit) {
> error = rconn_send__(rc, b, counter);
> } else {
> COVERAGE_INC(rconn_overflow);
> ofpbuf_delete(b);
> error = EAGAIN;
> }
> ovs_mutex_unlock(&rc->mutex);
>
> return error;
> }
Yes, in the patch I have sent I am calling rconn_send_with_limit() only
and this queue_limit (last arg) can be configurable from the controller side.
>
>>>
>>> So, my 2c until now, I wouldn't add this new knob. I would however add
>>> what missing CoPP support we may have.
>>>
>>> In general, but kind of a different story, maybe we should also think of
>>> a unified infrastructure for generating alerts from OVN components.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Naveen
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dumitru
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Naveen
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Numan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Naveen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Ales
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Naveen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Ales
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Naveen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can make this queue size configurable through new option
>>>>>>>>>> in Open_vSwitch table (external_ids column).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OVS is giving similar control through controller-queue-size option.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Naveen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Ales
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> controller/pinctrl.c | 48
>>>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/controller/pinctrl.c b/controller/pinctrl.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 216831e6e..ed903fc90 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/controller/pinctrl.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/controller/pinctrl.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> #include <config.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +#include <errno.h>
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> #include "pinctrl.h"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> #include "coverage.h"
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -172,6 +174,9 @@ static struct seq *pinctrl_handler_seq;
>>>>>>>>>>> static struct seq *pinctrl_main_seq;
>>>>>>>>>>> static uint64_t main_seq;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +/* Limit of tx packets can be queued on rconn.txq. */
>>>>>>>>>>> +#define PINCTRL_QUEUE_TX_PKT_LIMIT 8192
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> #define ARP_ND_DEF_MAX_TIMEOUT 16000
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> static long long int arp_nd_max_timeout = ARP_ND_DEF_MAX_TIMEOUT;
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -182,6 +187,8 @@ static void *pinctrl_handler(void *arg);
>>>>>>>>>>> struct pinctrl {
>>>>>>>>>>> /* OpenFlow connection to the switch. */
>>>>>>>>>>> struct rconn *swconn;
>>>>>>>>>>> + /* Counts tx packets queued on swconn. */
>>>>>>>>>>> + struct rconn_packet_counter *tx_pending_counter;
>>>>>>>>>>> pthread_t pinctrl_thread;
>>>>>>>>>>> /* Latch to destroy the 'pinctrl_thread' */
>>>>>>>>>>> struct latch pinctrl_thread_exit;
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -397,6 +404,7 @@ COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_ring_full_put_fdb);
>>>>>>>>>>> COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_drop_buffered_packets_map);
>>>>>>>>>>> COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_drop_controller_event);
>>>>>>>>>>> COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_drop_put_vport_binding);
>>>>>>>>>>> +COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_drop_rconn_overflow);
>>>>>>>>>>> COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_notify_main_thread);
>>>>>>>>>>> COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_notify_handler_thread);
>>>>>>>>>>> COVERAGE_DEFINE(pinctrl_total_pin_pkts);
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -580,6 +588,7 @@ pinctrl_init(void)
>>>>>>>>>>> bfd_monitor_init();
>>>>>>>>>>> init_fdb_entries();
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl.swconn = rconn_create(0, 0, DSCP_DEFAULT, 1 <<
>>>>>>>>>>> OFP15_VERSION);
>>>>>>>>>>> + pinctrl.tx_pending_counter = rconn_packet_counter_create();
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl.mac_binding_can_timestamp = false;
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl_handler_seq = seq_create();
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl_main_seq = seq_create();
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -600,6 +609,15 @@ queue_msg(struct rconn *swconn, struct ofpbuf
>>>>>>>>>>> *msg)
>>>>>>>>>>> return xid;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +static void
>>>>>>>>>>> +queue_msg_with_limit(struct rconn *swconn, struct ofpbuf *msg)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (rconn_send_with_limit(swconn, msg,
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl.tx_pending_counter,
>>>>>>>>>>> + PINCTRL_QUEUE_TX_PKT_LIMIT) ==
>>>>>>>>>>> EAGAIN) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + COVERAGE_INC(pinctrl_drop_rconn_overflow);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> /* Sets up 'swconn', a newly (re)connected connection to a switch.
>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>> static void
>>>>>>>>>>> pinctrl_setup(struct rconn *swconn)
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -639,7 +657,7 @@ enqueue_packet(struct rconn *swconn, enum
>>>>>>>>>>> ofp_version version,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> match_set_in_port(&po.flow_metadata, OFPP_CONTROLLER);
>>>>>>>>>>> enum ofputil_protocol proto =
>>>>>>>>>>> ofputil_protocol_from_ofp_version(version);
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po, proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> static void
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -751,7 +769,7 @@ pinctrl_forward_pkt(struct rconn *swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> int64_t dp_key,
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>> match_set_in_port(&po.flow_metadata, OFPP_CONTROLLER);
>>>>>>>>>>> enum ofputil_protocol proto =
>>>>>>>>>>> ofputil_protocol_from_ofp_version(version);
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po, proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> ofpbuf_uninit(&ofpacts);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1045,7 +1063,7 @@ pinctrl_parse_dhcpv6_advt(struct rconn
>>>>>>>>>>> *swconn, const struct flow *ip_flow,
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>> match_set_in_port(&po.flow_metadata, OFPP_CONTROLLER);
>>>>>>>>>>> enum ofputil_protocol proto =
>>>>>>>>>>> ofputil_protocol_from_ofp_version(version);
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po, proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(&packet);
>>>>>>>>>>> ofpbuf_uninit(&ofpacts);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2382,7 +2400,8 @@ exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> sv.u8_val = success;
>>>>>>>>>>> mf_write_subfield(&dst, &sv, &pin->flow_metadata);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> if (pkt_out_ptr) {
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(pkt_out_ptr);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2594,7 +2613,8 @@ exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> sv.u8_val = success;
>>>>>>>>>>> mf_write_subfield(&dst, &sv, &pin->flow_metadata);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> if (pkt_out_ptr) {
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(pkt_out_ptr);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2934,7 +2954,8 @@ exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> sv.u8_val = success;
>>>>>>>>>>> mf_write_subfield(&dst, &sv, &pin->flow_metadata);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> if (pkt_out_ptr) {
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(pkt_out_ptr);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3360,7 +3381,8 @@ exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> sv.u8_val = success;
>>>>>>>>>>> mf_write_subfield(&dst, &sv, &pin->flow_metadata);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(pkt_out_ptr);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3740,7 +3762,8 @@ exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> set_from_ctrl_flag_in_pkt_metadata(pin);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(pkt_out_ptr);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -4781,6 +4804,7 @@ pinctrl_destroy(void)
>>>>>>>>>>> pthread_join(pinctrl.pinctrl_thread, NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>> latch_destroy(&pinctrl.pinctrl_thread_exit);
>>>>>>>>>>> rconn_destroy(pinctrl.swconn);
>>>>>>>>>>> + rconn_packet_counter_destroy(pinctrl.tx_pending_counter);
>>>>>>>>>>> destroy_send_arps_nds();
>>>>>>>>>>> destroy_ipv6_ras();
>>>>>>>>>>> destroy_ipv6_prefixd();
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -6691,7 +6715,8 @@ exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> sv.u8_val = success;
>>>>>>>>>>> mf_write_subfield(&dst, &sv, &pin->flow_metadata);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_uninit(pkt_out_ptr);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -6804,7 +6829,8 @@ pinctrl_handle_put_icmp4_inner_ip4_src(struct
>>>>>>>>>>> rconn *swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> pin->packet_len = dp_packet_size(pkt_out);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> exit:
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn,
>>>>>>>>>>> + ofputil_encode_resume(pin, continuation,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> if (pkt_out) {
>>>>>>>>>>> dp_packet_delete(pkt_out);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -9029,7 +9055,7 @@ pinctrl_split_buf_action_handler(struct rconn
>>>>>>>>>>> *swconn, struct dp_packet *pkt,
>>>>>>>>>>> match_set_in_port(&po.flow_metadata, OFPP_CONTROLLER);
>>>>>>>>>>> enum ofp_version version = rconn_get_version(swconn);
>>>>>>>>>>> enum ofputil_protocol proto =
>>>>>>>>>>> ofputil_protocol_from_ofp_version(version);
>>>>>>>>>>> - queue_msg(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po, proto));
>>>>>>>>>>> + queue_msg_with_limit(swconn, ofputil_encode_packet_out(&po,
>>>>>>>>>>> proto));
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofpbuf_uninit(&ofpacts);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.43.5
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.openvswitch.org_mailman_listinfo_ovs-2Ddev&d=DwIFaQ&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=2PQjSDR7A28z1kXE1ptSm6X36oL_nCq1XxeEt7FkLmA&m=lq_DmPMKNcUTPolFj_QSDsyELKJJcwHXy3o8Zy20Hmsimj4pxDHRLMpj6sdKkNNE&s=lD09qlu6cLSP7oQi6ehjASaYSvf04OmdcszWvSAOT0Q&e=
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org] [mail.openvswitch.org
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org]] [mail.openvswitch.org
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org] [mail.openvswitch.org
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org]]] [mail.openvswitch.org
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org][mail.openvswitch.org [mail.openvswitch.org]]
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org [mail.openvswitch.org] [mail.openvswitch.org
>>>>>>>>>>> [mail.openvswitch.org]]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Ales
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
