On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:38:37PM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Agreed, and that's also what in my mind. It's some work in DPDK though.

> This brings back another discussion point: having user specification of HWOL 
> flows
> is starting to look more useful,

Are you introducing some new (CLI) interfaces? Could you give a bit more
detailes here?

> as it helps the queue action issue and HWOL
> capacity planning/predictability for high value flows.

Yes, I would think so.

        --yliu
>      
>     >     > 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

Reply via email to