[ovs-dev] [PATCH v14 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations

Stokes, Ian ian.stokes at intel.com
Fri Jul 19 11:14:47 UTC 2019


> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets at samsung.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 11:57 AM
> >> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes at intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry
> >> <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; dev at openvswitch.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v14 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2019 11:27, Ian Stokes wrote:
> >>> On 7/19/2019 9:08 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> >>>> On 19.07.2019 9:58, Ian Stokes wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/18/2019 3:30 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/18/2019 2:03 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hey Folks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here a v14 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been
> >>>>>>> presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since
> >> then.
> >>>>>>> I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has
> had
> >>>>>>> enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks Ilya for input and suggestions on v13. Only change is that
> >>>>>>> the implementation of the blocks array memory allocation is now
> >>>>>>> using DEFINE_PER_THREAD_MALLOCED_DATA() macro, allowing for proper
> >>>>>>> de-allocation of the allocated memory after a thread exits.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards, -Harry
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Harry for the v14. Just testing it and it seems in good
> shape
> >> to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Ilya for the suggestions around the per thread allocation
> for
> >> scratch as well, this feedback has helped and is resolving multithread
> >> issues spotted in the earlier series.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I feel the patchset is now in a state that it should be considered
> >> for the 2.12 release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We've had testing from a number of groups over the series (Red Hat,
> >> Arm, Intel, Samsung) with positive results across the board.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It also opens up opportunities for further improving the dpcls in
> the
> >> 2.13 release next year.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As such I think it's worth an exception to merge before Mondays
> >> feature freeze so that it benefits from the 4 week settling period
> before
> >> release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are there any objections to this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Ian
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't heard any objections to this since yesterday. My
> intentions
> >> are to merge this today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi. Sorry, it was only 2.5 hours of my working time since your
> previous
> >> mail.
> >>>> Are you at office 24/7?
> >>>
> >>> Really? I thought my last email was yesterday evening, maybe there was
> a
> >> delay in it going out on my side, it's OVS release crunch time so  tend
> to
> >> lose track of time, I'm pretty sure I slept for a few hours since the
> last
> >> mail :)
> >>>
> >>>> I'm testing the v14 now and will reply with results in a couple of
> >> hours.
> >>>> Is it OK for you?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for testing on the latest revsion Ilya, much appreciated. If
> you
> >> come across anything untowards today let us know :).
> >>
> >> I finished testing v14. No issues observed. Slight performance
> difference
> >> with a previous versions, but nothing significant. So, it's OK for me.
> >
> > Thanks Ilya, can I add your ack for the series with the amendment on
> patch 5 you flagged?
> 
> OK. Sure.

Cool, thank you very much for the work on this, I'm not being finicky but for such a change I think it's worth having two maintainers on board for the commits.

Thanks
Ian


More information about the dev mailing list