On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:19:22PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:43:00AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:01:38AM +0000, Roi Dayan wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2019-10-18 1:00 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:53:52AM +0000, Roi Dayan wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2019-10-16 2:40 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > > > >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:37:14AM +0300, Roi Dayan wrote: > > > >>>> From: Chris Mi <[email protected]> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Currently, ovs supports to offload max TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO(32) actions. > > > >>>> But net sched api has a limit of 4K message size which is not enough > > > >>>> for 32 actions when echo flag is set. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> After a lot of testing, we find that 16 actions is a reasonable > > > >>>> number. > > > >>>> So in this commit, we introduced a new define to limit the max > > > >>>> actions. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Fixes: 0c70132cd288("tc: Make the actions order consistent") > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Mi <[email protected]> > > > >>>> Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <[email protected]> > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Chris, > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm unclear on what problem is this patch solving. > > > >> > > > >> Hi Simon, > > > >> > > > >> I can help with the answer here. > > > >> When ovs send netlink msg to tc to add a filter we also add > > > >> the echo flag to get a reply data. this reply can be big as > > > >> it contains everything from the request and if it pass the 4K > > > >> size then the kernel will just not fill/send it but the return > > > >> status of the tc command is still 0 for success. > > > >> > > > >> In ovs we use that reply to get back the handle id on success but > > > >> for this case will fail. > > > >> To make sure this ack reply always exists for successful tc calls > > > >> we limit the number of actions here to avoid reaching the 4K size > > > >> limit. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > It sounds like it would be good to develop a mechanism where > > > > the information required can be retrieved in a less verbose manner, > > > > thus allowing a higher limit. > > > > > > > > But I do agree that this resolves a problem and I have applied it to > > > > master. Let me know if you think it is also appropriate for older > > > > branches. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > thanks Simon. > > > this patch can be applied also to branches 2.10, 2.11, 2.12. > > > > Thanks, > > > > I have pushed a backport to branch-2.12. > > And I intend to do likewise for branch-2.11 if travis-ci passes. > > I have now pushed this patch to branch-2.11. > > > > > I am however holding back on branch-2.10 as it seems broken > > with respect to travis-ci. And I do not like to add patches > > to broken branches. > > > > I am trying to investigate the cause of that breakage. > > I would also welcome any help in this area. > > I have proposed a fix for this problem. > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2019-October/363868.html
That fix was merged by Ben and now that branch-2.10 is travis-ci clean I have gone ahead and applied this patch there. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
