I was actually thinking that when the limit is reached, we would stop
creating new batches, and simply execute any packets which don't fit
into the existing set one by one. Not sure which way is better.
Anyways I'll send out a proposal and we can decide how to do it in the
review.
Ethan
On Mon,
On Jun 30, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> Would it make sense to batch the upcalls as well, i.e. collect them up and
>> then issue them with a single dp_netdev_output_userspace()?
>
> Yep, Ryan is working on that.
>
>> It would seem that starting from the newest batch and looping b
> Would it make sense to batch the upcalls as well, i.e. collect them up and
> then issue them with a single dp_netdev_output_userspace()?
Yep, Ryan is working on that.
> It would seem that starting from the newest batch and looping backwards might
> find the batch sooner, especially if the pac
Minor comments below, otherwise:
Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme
Jarno
On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
> ---
> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 96 +++
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
lib/dpif-netdev.c | 96 +++
1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
index 3a2b68f..58c629b 100644
--- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
+++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
@@ -
