On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 04:53:22PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 9/15/20 9:20 PM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > The datapath flow limit is calculated by revalidators so > > log the value as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Flavio Leitner <[email protected]> > > --- > > ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c > > index 72a5b4d73..05a912f57 100644 > > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c > > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c > > @@ -1283,7 +1283,8 @@ should_install_flow(struct udpif *udpif, struct > > upcall *upcall) > > atomic_read_relaxed(&udpif->flow_limit, &flow_limit); > > if (udpif_get_n_flows(udpif) >= flow_limit) { > > COVERAGE_INC(upcall_flow_limit_hit); > > - VLOG_WARN_RL(&rl, "upcall: datapath flow limit reached"); > > + VLOG_WARN_RL(&rl, "upcall: datapath flow limit reached (max: %u)", > > I think that we're not printing this value just because it's dynamically > adjustable by revalidators. From that perspective, I don't think that > 'max' is a good word to describe the value, because users might think > that they have a direct control over it and might think that it's the > value set by the 'flow_limit' configuration knob. > 'current dynamic limit' or something similar might be better choice, but > I'm not sure.
Sent v2: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2020-September/375646.html -- fbl _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
