[ovs-dev] [ovs-discuss] tc ingress qdisc of tapB disappeared when del-port tapA from bridge

ychen ychen103103 at 163.com
Tue Aug 11 09:06:03 UTC 2015

Hi, I need some help about ovs QOS policing.
I want to know the meaning of the flag VALID_POLICING
In function netdev_linux_set_policing(), whether parameter "kbits_rate"equals to 0 or not, VALID_POLICING flag will be set.
In my opinion, only when users set ingress_policing_rate to none zero, then VALID_POLICING should be set, if ingress_policing_rate is cleared or set to 0, then VALID_POLICING should be unset
am I right? or there is another meaning of this flag?

At 2015-08-10 21:36:51, "ychen" <ychen103103 at 163.com> wrote:

There are still something puzzled me, can you do some help?
1. what's the meaning of the flag VALID_POLICING?
   I don't see any meaning of the flag VALID_POLICING in function netdev_linux_set_policing().
   you see, whether the parameter "kbits_rate"equals to 0, the clause netdev->cache_valid |= VALID_POLICING; will be executed only if the conditions matches error !=0 

   another strange phenomenon is that, when i set breakpoint on function netdev_linux_set_policing, I found that netdev->cache_valid equals to 0x73 which means VALID_POLICING has set before this function
   but I can't find anywhere to set this flag except in function netdev_linux_set_policing. why?

2. which event triggered message RTM_NEWLINK?
   I found that when use command "add-port br0  tap111", first function netdev_linux_set_policing() will be called, then netdev_linux_update() with message RTM_NEWLINK
   and this message will lead to netdev->cache_valid to clear the flag VALID_POLICING.
   my question is, the port tap111 is a system port, I have created it in kernel before add it to ovs bridge.
   and I didn't to anything like up the port or change the port's namespace or change mtu/mac etc, but why RTM_NEWLINK is trigerred?
  At 2015-07-23 23:51:41, "Ben Pfaff" <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:12:22AM +0800, ychen wrote:
>> sorry, but how to contribute to this thread: http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-May/017687.html
>> It seems I can only reply this thread http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-July/018324.html
>I don't see how any of your solutions solve the problem described in
>http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-May/017687.html.  I don't
>see much value in just tweaking the parameters of the problem.

More information about the dev mailing list