On 2 Jun 2023, at 17:12, Peng He wrote:
> Hi, Eelco and Ilya,
> I have sent a new version of this patch with a test case.
Nice…
> 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
