[ovs-discuss] OVS balance-tcp bonding

Flavio Leitner fbl at redhat.com
Fri Oct 23 16:05:21 UTC 2015


Hi Andy,

I built a test package with your previous patch to Joe, but
we need to schedule an appropriate time to test it, so it's
a bit slow on that front.

Having said that, which patch do you think is better to try first?

Thanks,
fbl

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> Hi, Joe,
> 
> This is potentially a better fix that I'd like to propose for the
> 'net' tree. It would be great if you can test it in your set up to
> see if it solved the issue you are facing with.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> andy
> 
> diff --git a/datapath/actions.c b/datapath/actions.c
> index c529bbb..208eb30 100644
> --- a/datapath/actions.c
> +++ b/datapath/actions.c
> @@ -1003,11 +1003,11 @@ int ovs_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp,
> struct sk_buff *skb,
>         err = do_execute_actions(dp, skb, key,
>                                  acts->actions, acts->actions_len);
> 
> -       if (!level)
> -               process_deferred_actions(dp);
> -
>         this_cpu_dec(exec_actions_level);
> 
> +       if (level <= 1)
> +               process_deferred_actions(dp);
> +
>         /* This return status currently does not reflect the errors
>          * encounted during deferred actions execution. Probably needs to
>          * be fixed in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Andy Zhou <azhou at nicira.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joe Talerico <jtaleric at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> When using balance-tcp bonding with OVS we were seeing ARP issues when we
> >> reached ~ 100 guests. I Tracked as much as possible here :
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267291
> >>
> >> Has anyone seen this behavior before?
> >>
> >> Switching to active/backup resolves the issue.
> >
> > Thanks for reporting the issue with lots of relevant information.  I
> > have not seen this issue before.
> > One the error messages in the bugzilla report suggested that you may
> > ran into the deferred action fifo limit.
> >
> > Would you please try to increase its size with the following patch,
> > and report back how much it helped. This changes OVS kernel module, so
> > you will have to recompile the kernel module.
> >
> > This is not like the right fix, but should help to confirm if there
> > are any other issues in the way to get your set up working.
> >
> > diff --git a/datapath/actions.c b/datapath/actions.c
> > index c529bbb..a4afecb 100644
> > --- a/datapath/actions.c
> > +++ b/datapath/actions.c
> > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ struct deferred_action {
> >         struct sw_flow_key pkt_key;
> >  };
> >
> > -#define DEFERRED_ACTION_FIFO_SIZE 10
> > +#define DEFERRED_ACTION_FIFO_SIZE 100
> >  struct action_fifo {
> >         int head;
> >         int tail;
> 



More information about the discuss mailing list