Thanks for all the responses! I'll comment on a few: On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 06:26:05PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > On Sep 26, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > A 30-second timeout seems long to me. After that long, the sender will > > have retransmitted the packet, probably multiple times. I wasn't able > > to figure out how long Linux buffers packets. > > > > afaiu Linux neighbor subsystem removes an unresolved entry after a > given number of attempts (~5). The default value for NEIGH_VAR_RETRANS_TIME > is 1s, so I guess we can use 5s here as BUFFER_MAP_TIMEOUT?
That sounds reasonable to me. > > Do you think it makes sense to use the same timestamp for all of the > > packets buffered for a single IP? I believe that, currently, no packets > > will ever expire from a buffer unless either the buffer limit is > > exceeded or no new packets have been queued for the timeout interval. I > > think that would mean that there could be a packet buffered for a total > > of 30 + 64 seconds. > > Stale timeout was intended for buffered_packets_map entries and not for > packets > buffered for a single IP. However reviewing the code I agree that wait > so long for a given packet is not useful. On the other hand if we set queue > depth to 3 or so I guess it will not make a huge difference. Do you agree? > Anyway we can add per-packet timeout instead of per entry one I agree that with a small queue depth, it doesn't matter as much, so I think either place for a timeout is fine. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
