Hi, Eelco and Ilya,
I have sent a new version of this patch with a test case.
Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> 于2023年5月15日周一 15:45写道：
>
>
> On 12 May 2023, at 3:57, Peng He wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> 于2023年5月11日周四 15:04写道：
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4 May 2023, at 9:50, Peng He wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> sorry for the late reply.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, basically this means going back to v5, but with a minor
> difference.
> >>>
> >>> In the original v5, the INCONSISTENT to EVICTING change is in the
> >>> revalidate_sweep__ phrase.
> >>>
> >>> However，since you have spot that doing so in sweep phrase has a risk:
> If
> >> in
> >>> sweep phrase,
> >>> we initial a dp op of UKEY_MODIFY but fail, we will never have another
> >>> sweep phrase after
> >>> this dp_ops and eventually when doing the next round revalidator(), we
> >> have
> >>> a warning:
> >>>
> >>> VLOG_INFO("Unexpected ukey transition from state %d "
> >>> "(last transitioned from thread %u at %s)",
> >>>
> >>> Here we will put this change in flow dump phrase. When dump a megaflow,
> >> and
> >>> found
> >>> its ukey->state == INCONSISTENT, initial a UKEY delete op.
> >>
> >> I see you already sent out a v8, and I need to re-sync with all the past
> >> approaches and changes.
> >>
> >> Will try to do a “reset” and review it from scratch next week if I find
> >> some time.
> >>
> >> I guess you still do not have a way to replicate this without code
> changes.
> >>
> >
> > are you thinking to add a testcase for this ?
>
> Yes, it would be nice if we had a way to replicate this for verification,
> and even better if we could do this with a test case.
>
> //Eelco
>
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Eelco
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > hepeng
>
>
--
hepeng
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
