On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 14:46 +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > > On 29 Nov 2021, at 22:02, Aaron Conole wrote: > > > This reverts commit c645550bb249 ("odp-util: Always report > > ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE for IGMP.") > > > > Always forcing a slow path action can result in some over-broad > > flows which swallow all traffic and force them to userspace, as reported > > in the thread at > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2021-September/387706.html > > and at > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2021-September/387689.html > > > > Revert the ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE return for IGMP specifically. > > Additionally, remove the userspace wc mask to prevent revalidator from > > cycling flows. > > > > Fixes: c645550bb249 ("odp-util: Always report ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE for IGMP.") > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> > > Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> > > Thanks Aaron for adding the tests! > > Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
Hello Aaron, Looks good but I'm having some issues with the "igmp flood for non-snoop enabled" test. I find that it fails for me a small percentage of the time, The following snippet will reproduce this issue: for i in $(seq 1 100); do make check TESTSUITEFLAGS="2379"; if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then echo "Test $i failed"; break; fi; done The diff shows: -recirc_id(0),in_port(1),eth(src=aa:55:aa:55:00:01,dst=01:01:00:0c:29:a0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), actions:100,2 -recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(src=01:01:00:0c:29:a0,dst=aa:55:aa:55:00:01),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), actions:1 +recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(src=aa:55:aa:55:00:01,dst=01:01:00:0c:29:a0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), actions:100,1 +recirc_id(0),in_port(1),eth(src=01:01:00:0c:29:a0,dst=aa:55:aa:55:00:01),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), actions:2 And the logs show: > 2021-12-06T20:32:20.519Z|00053|bridge|INFO|bridge br0: added interface p1 on > port 2 > 2021-12-06T20:32:20.519Z|00054|bridge|INFO|bridge br0: added interface p0 on > port 1 So it seems like the proper port numbers are being assigned, but the flow seems to have incorrect port numbers. Not sure what's going on there, but I also found that splitting the the "ovs-vsctl add-port" invocations into two commands fixed the issue. Cheers, M > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev