On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 14:46 +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
> On 29 Nov 2021, at 22:02, Aaron Conole wrote:
>
> > This reverts commit c645550bb249 ("odp-util: Always report
> > ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE for IGMP.")
> >
> > Always forcing a slow path action can result in some over-broad
> > flows which swallow all traffic and force them to userspace, as reported
> > in the thread at
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2021-September/387706.html
> > and at
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2021-September/387689.html
> >
> > Revert the ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE return for IGMP specifically.
> > Additionally, remove the userspace wc mask to prevent revalidator from
> > cycling flows.
> >
> > Fixes: c645550bb249 ("odp-util: Always report ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE for IGMP.")
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks Aaron for adding the tests!
>
> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
Hello Aaron,
Looks good but I'm having some issues with the "igmp flood for non-snoop
enabled" test.
I find that it fails for me a small percentage of the time, The following
snippet will reproduce this issue:
for i in $(seq 1 100); do make check TESTSUITEFLAGS="2379"; if [[ $? -ne 0 ]];
then echo "Test $i failed"; break; fi; done
The diff shows:
-recirc_id(0),in_port(1),eth(src=aa:55:aa:55:00:01,dst=01:01:00:0c:29:a0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no),
actions:100,2
-recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(src=01:01:00:0c:29:a0,dst=aa:55:aa:55:00:01),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no),
actions:1
+recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(src=aa:55:aa:55:00:01,dst=01:01:00:0c:29:a0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no),
actions:100,1
+recirc_id(0),in_port(1),eth(src=01:01:00:0c:29:a0,dst=aa:55:aa:55:00:01),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no),
actions:2
And the logs show:
> 2021-12-06T20:32:20.519Z|00053|bridge|INFO|bridge br0: added interface p1 on
> port 2
> 2021-12-06T20:32:20.519Z|00054|bridge|INFO|bridge br0: added interface p0 on
> port 1
So it seems like the proper port numbers are being assigned, but the flow seems
to have incorrect port numbers. Not sure what's going on there, but I also
found that splitting the the "ovs-vsctl add-port" invocations into two commands
fixed the issue.
Cheers,
M
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> d...@openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
