On 16 Feb 2023, at 14:21, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 2/14/23 14:12, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>> Remove one of two consecutive time_msec() calls in the revalidate() function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c
>> index db7570ee2..cbfe71d6c 100644
>> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c
>> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c
>> @@ -2750,7 +2750,7 @@ revalidate(struct revalidator *revalidator)
>>
>> max_idle = n_dp_flows > flow_limit ? 100 : ofproto_max_idle;
>>
>> - udpif->dpif->current_ms = time_msec();
>> + udpif->dpif->current_ms = now;
>> for (f = flows; f < &flows[n_dumped]; f++) {
>> long long int used = f->stats.used;
>> struct recirc_refs recircs = RECIRC_REFS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
>>
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure if it's fully redundant here. It seem to protect us
> from potential fluctuations caused by requesting or not requesting
> datapath statistics on different runs.
>
> I'm not sure how important that is, but the n_flows retrieval may become
> heavier if we're going to dump the data from the netdev-offload as well.
Yes, I was thinking about that also and was contemplating if I should change
the patch to:
udpif->dpif->current_ms = now = time_msec();
And remove the earlier assignment.
> What do you think?
>
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
