Paolo Valerio <pvale...@redhat.com> writes:
> Hello Liang,
>
> Liang Mancang <liang...@chinatelecom.cn> writes:
>
>> when a exp_list contains more than the clean_end's number of nodes,
>> and these nodes will not expire immediately. Then, every times we
>> call conntrack_clean, it use the same next_sweep to get exp_list.
>>
>
> Yes, in general, if the previous count exceeds the clean_end, it should
> not make the sweeper restart from a list just swept, but it should not
> happen that a single list contains more than n_conn_limit / 64.
>
> Did you observe a single exp_list containing more than n_conn_limit / 64
> entries?
>
>> Actually, we should add i every times after we call ct_sweep.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liang Mancang <liang...@chinatelecom.cn>
>> ---
>> lib/conntrack.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/conntrack.c b/lib/conntrack.c
>> index 524670e45..5029b2cda 100644
>> --- a/lib/conntrack.c
>> +++ b/lib/conntrack.c
>> @@ -1512,12 +1512,13 @@ conntrack_clean(struct conntrack *ct, long long now)
>> clean_end = n_conn_limit / 64;
>>
>> for (i = ct->next_sweep; i < N_EXP_LISTS; i++) {
>> - count += ct_sweep(ct, &ct->exp_lists[i], now);
>> -
>> if (count > clean_end) {
>> next_wakeup = 0;
>> +
>
> This new line is not needed, and a Fixes tag could be added:
>
> Fixes: 3d9c1b855a5f ("conntrack: Replace timeout based expiration lists with
> rculists.")
>
> The patch LGTM,
>
Sorry, the last line slipped out. Please consider my question and the
other comments. I will explicitly tag the patch once we're done.
>> break;
>> }
>> +
>> + count += ct_sweep(ct, &ct->exp_lists[i], now);
>> }
>>
>> ct->next_sweep = (i < N_EXP_LISTS) ? i : 0;
>> --
>> 2.30.0.windows.2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
