On 8/29/17, 7:33 PM, "Yuanhan Liu" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:02:23AM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
> > +#define MAX_RTE_FLOW_ITEMS 100
> > +#define MAX_RTE_FLOW_ACTIONS 100
> >
> > I guess these are temporary
>
> Yes, the hardcoded number is really hacky.
>
> > Do we need to do a rte query during initialization ?
>
> query on what?
>
> [Darrell]
> I mean somehow the max hardware resources available at
> dev initialization time ? I realize this is non-trivial overall.
I see you point then. I don't think it's needed then. I'm also not
aware of there are such limitations existed (say, how many patterns
are supported). I think we just add patterns as many as we can and
let the driver to figure out the rest. If the flow creation is failed,
we skip the hw offload, with an error message provided.
[Darrell]
I understand the present intention.
But for future enhancements, maybe it would be good to display the max
capability/capacity and
remaining capacity to the user in some way.
This brings back another discussion point: having user specification of HWOL
flows
is starting to look more useful, as it helps the queue action issue and HWOL
capacity planning/predictability for high value flows.
> > static (inline) function maybe ?
>
> Indeed. I'm not a big fan of macro like this. Let me turn it to
function
> next time. I see no reason to make it inline (explicitly) though: it's
> not in data path. Moreover, it's likely it will be inlined implicitly
by
> compiler.
>
> [Darrell]
> I put ‘(inline)’ in parentheses because we would never specify it
explicitly,
> since gcc would likely inline anyways.
I see. Sorry for misunderstanding.
--yliu
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
