On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:21:02PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 8/14/25 11:05 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:49:30PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> >> On 8/14/25 9:58 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> >>> From: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.no...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Openvswitch opencodes for_each_cpu_from(). Fix it and drop some
> >>> housekeeping code.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.no...@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> net/openvswitch/flow.c | 14 ++++++--------
> >>> net/openvswitch/flow_table.c | 8 ++++----
> >>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow.c b/net/openvswitch/flow.c
> >>> index b80bd3a90773..b464ab120731 100644
> >>> --- a/net/openvswitch/flow.c
> >>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow.c
> >>> @@ -129,15 +129,14 @@ void ovs_flow_stats_get(const struct sw_flow *flow,
> >>> struct ovs_flow_stats *ovs_stats,
> >>> unsigned long *used, __be16 *tcp_flags)
> >>> {
> >>> - int cpu;
> >>> + /* CPU 0 is always considered */
> >>> + unsigned int cpu = 1;
> >>
> >> Hmm. I'm a bit confused here. Where is CPU 0 considered if we start
> >> iteration from 1?
> >
> > I didn't touch this part of the original comment, as you see, and I'm
> > not a domain expert, so don't know what does this wording mean.
> >
> > Most likely 'always considered' means that CPU0 is not accounted in this
> > statistics.
> >
> >>> *used = 0;
> >>> *tcp_flags = 0;
> >>> memset(ovs_stats, 0, sizeof(*ovs_stats));
> >>>
> >>> - /* We open code this to make sure cpu 0 is always considered */
> >>> - for (cpu = 0; cpu < nr_cpu_ids;
> >>> - cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, flow->cpu_used_mask)) {
> >>> + for_each_cpu_from(cpu, flow->cpu_used_mask) {
> >>
> >> And why it needs to be a for_each_cpu_from() and not just for_each_cpu() ?
> >
> > The original code explicitly ignores CPU0.
>
> No, it's not. The loop explicitly starts from zero. And the comments
> are saying that the loop is open-coded specifically to always have zero
> in the iteration.
OK, I see now. That indentation has fooled me. So the comment means
that CPU0 is included even if flow->cpu_used_mask has it cleared. And
to avoid opencoding, we need to do like:
for_each_cpu_or(cpu, flow->cpu_used_mask, cpumask_of(0))
I'll send v2 shortly.
Thanks for pointing to this, eagle eye :).
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
