On 12 May 2023, at 3:57, Peng He wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> 于2023年5月11日周四 15:04写道：
>
>>
>>
>> On 4 May 2023, at 9:50, Peng He wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> sorry for the late reply.
>>>
>>> Yes, basically this means going back to v5, but with a minor difference.
>>>
>>> In the original v5, the INCONSISTENT to EVICTING change is in the
>>> revalidate_sweep__ phrase.
>>>
>>> However，since you have spot that doing so in sweep phrase has a risk: If
>> in
>>> sweep phrase,
>>> we initial a dp op of UKEY_MODIFY but fail, we will never have another
>>> sweep phrase after
>>> this dp_ops and eventually when doing the next round revalidator(), we
>> have
>>> a warning:
>>>
>>> VLOG_INFO("Unexpected ukey transition from state %d "
>>> "(last transitioned from thread %u at %s)",
>>>
>>> Here we will put this change in flow dump phrase. When dump a megaflow,
>> and
>>> found
>>> its ukey->state == INCONSISTENT, initial a UKEY delete op.
>>
>> I see you already sent out a v8, and I need to re-sync with all the past
>> approaches and changes.
>>
>> Will try to do a “reset” and review it from scratch next week if I find
>> some time.
>>
>> I guess you still do not have a way to replicate this without code changes.
>>
>
> are you thinking to add a testcase for this ?
Yes, it would be nice if we had a way to replicate this for verification, and
even better if we could do this with a test case.
//Eelco
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>>
>
> --
> hepeng
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
