From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D672818EAB for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707234052; cv=none; b=nh8O7OVhMcUCJvYKBfYYuYuwsDzjtxMuqPm11h5Corw22NvqIO6MqsoeJmLte8pZMQRL4ludCXd8tRuSzM0drgdxQFDpl4FyNQVbUHdV0tCFh5X8mgLJ2zrZisiWKnXoHRED0rGk+M0z/5fdnjRVUWgfvg4ktXuQ9TkINdF2lVs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707234052; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Tw9mDUBtNP0BrDPfzJF7VX87v9ZUy752dtcldLBfOV8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=u81aGJ5cLUaWX6e4NzfVmoMl5D6XJPy9vDJivuWXSH4PS1zTJRZgmdAIy8APsMzDJw8GM1WRLlet/OYEkfMC0yuA0yqeALNEhWKOI3uvyR2XHWcPUfLzOC4lTUgD6wjwogcIw5lxhJBcT5Y5KJbL8XwLQ9Q5AcuoGGAxmhK/8hA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=ZS3BxqNV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ZS3BxqNV" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1707234049; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n88iFnKY67YOPgdWJeamuFvI6GAastNi1Kt27+2JVpc=; b=ZS3BxqNV6cGNdzPE8UURcltQEN2aOcPR35toGwzq7Hk2jGT8nJBgyC71Ua2BO79n2njzIz sylI/WAxIJh3kebX6uk50E1Y9m6PYALvq1m/HwVRhavqb0KzxF3LeInnL7NXeTjmhkosH3 IRfrOXVPBwA5wrmblTyXzGRANMLmsLY= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-52-TEXFpg2ENwyMv2Nk4_Pw_Q-1; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:40:44 -0500 X-MC-Unique: TEXFpg2ENwyMv2Nk4_Pw_Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 289D3811E79; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9DE28BCC; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:40:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Eric Dumazet Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Pravin B Shelar , dev@openvswitch.org, Ilya Maximets , Simon Horman , Eelco Chaudron Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net: openvswitch: limit the number of recursions from action sets References: <20240206131147.1286530-1-aconole@redhat.com> <20240206131147.1286530-2-aconole@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:40:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Eric Dumazet's message of "Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:56:46 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 Eric Dumazet writes: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:55=E2=80=AFPM Aaron Conole = wrote: >> >> >> Oops - I didn't consider it. >> >> Given that, maybe the best approach would not to rely on per-cpu >> counter. I'll respin in the next series with a depth counter that I pass >> to the function instead and compare that. I guess that should address >> migration and eliminate the need for per-cpu counter. >> >> Does it make sense? > > Sure, a depth parameter would work much better ;) Okay - I'll give time for others to comment and resubmit in ~24 hours unless there's a reason to submit sooner.