On tor, mar 24, 2022 at 16:27, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:23:39PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: >> On tor, mar 24, 2022 at 13:09, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:32:08AM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: >> >> On ons, mar 23, 2022 at 16:43, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 01:49:32PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: >> >> >> >> Does someone have an idea why there at this point is no option to add a >> >> >> >> dynamic fdb entry? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The fdb added entries here do not age out, while the ATU entries do >> >> >> >> (after 5 min), resulting in unsynced ATU vs fdb. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I think the expectation is to use br_fdb_external_learn_del() if the >> >> >> > externally learned entry expires. The bridge should not age by itself >> >> >> > FDB entries learned externally. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems to me that something is missing then? >> >> >> My tests using trafgen that I gave a report on to Lunn generated massive >> >> >> amounts of fdb entries, but after a while the ATU was clean and the fdb >> >> >> was still full of random entries... >> >> > >> >> > I'm no longer sure where you are, sorry.. >> >> > I think we discussed that you need to enable ATU age interrupts in order >> >> > to keep the ATU in sync with the bridge FDB? Which means either to >> >> > delete the locked FDB entries from the bridge when they age out in the >> >> > ATU, or to keep refreshing locked ATU entries. >> >> > So it seems that you're doing neither of those 2 things if you end up >> >> > with bridge FDB entries which are no longer in the ATU. >> >> >> >> Any idea why G2 offset 5 ATUAgeIntEn (bit 10) is set? There is no define >> >> for it, so I assume it is something default? >> > >> > No idea, but I can confirm that the out-of-reset value I see for >> > MV88E6XXX_G2_SWITCH_MGMT on 6190 and 6390 is 0x400. It's best not to >> > rely on any reset defaults though. >> >> I see no age out interrupts, even though the ports Age Out Int is on >> (PAV bit 14) on the locked port, and the ATU entries do age out (HoldAt1 >> is off). Any idea why that can be? >> >> I combination with this I think it would be nice to have an ability to >> set the AgeOut time even though it is not per port but global. > > Sorry, I just don't know. Looking at the documentation for IntOnAgeOut, > I see it says that for an ATU entry to trigger an age out interrupt, the > port it's associated with must have IntOnAgeOut set. > But your locked ATU entries aren't associated with any port, they have > DPV=0, right? So will they never trigger any age out interrupt according > to this? I'm not clear. I think that's absolutely right. That leaves two options. Either "port 10" if it has IntOnAgeOut setting, or the reason why I wrote my comments in this part of the code, that it should be able to add a dynamic entry in the bridge module from the driver.
