> On 10/14/21 12:45 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >> On 9/25/21 12:19 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >>> Introduce memory accounting for: > >>> - binding local_lports map > >>> - binding related_lports map > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> controller/binding.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> controller/binding.h | 5 ++++ > >>> controller/ovn-controller.c | 5 ++-- > >>> 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/controller/binding.c b/controller/binding.c > >>> index 661b4bb24..ec1e8bec7 100644 > >>> --- a/controller/binding.c > >>> +++ b/controller/binding.c > >>> @@ -39,6 +39,31 @@ > >>> > >>> VLOG_DEFINE_THIS_MODULE(binding); > >>> > >>> +static uint64_t local_lports_usage; > >>> +static uint64_t related_lports_usage; > >>> + > >>> +static void > >>> +sset_mem_update(uint64_t *usage, struct sset *set, > >>> + const char *name, bool erase) > >>> +{ > >>> + struct sset_node *node = sset_find(set, name); > >>> + > >>> + if (!node && !erase) { /* add new element */ > >>> + *usage += (sizeof *node + strlen(name)); > >>> + } else if (node && erase) { /* remove an element */ > >>> + *usage -= (sizeof *node + strlen(name)); > >>> + } > >>> +} > >>> + > >>> +static void > >>> +sset_mem_clear(struct sset *set, uint64_t *usage) > >>> +{ > >>> + const char *name; > >>> + SSET_FOR_EACH (name, set) { > >>> + sset_mem_update(usage, set, name, true); > >>> + } > >>> +} > >>> + > >> > >> I'm not too sure about this. These functions are very generic. I think > >> this should be part of the sset code itself. Maybe a sset should just > >> automatically (or if configured) track all the memory it owns? What do > >> you think? > > > > +Ilya > > > > I guess it would be a nice to have. sset are widely used but I do not think > > this patch will introduce a huge overhead. > > > > Regarding the specific patch we can remove it from the series in order to > > unlock it or we can have a local routines for the moment and then remove > > them > > when we have sset support. What do you think? > > I don't really expect the local_lports and related_lports ssets to grow > too big so I think we can probably wait with this patch until we have a > more generic solution, maybe directly in sset.
so we can just remove the patch from the series and repost it w/o 4/4 Regards, Lorenzo > > Regards, > Dumitru > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
