2017-01-22 11:45 GMT-08:00 Jan Scheurich <jan.scheur...@web.de>: > >> It's not a big deal, since the most important use case we have for >> dpif-netdev is with dpdk, but I'd still like the code to behave >> similarly on different platforms. How about defining a function that >> uses random_uint32 when compiling without DPDK? >> >> For testing it's not that simple, because unit tests can be run with >> or without DPDK. It would need to be configurable at runtime. >> Perhaps making EM_FLOW_INSERT_PROB configurable at runtime would also >> help people that want to experiment with different values, even >> though, based on the comments, I guess they wouldn't really see much >> difference. >> >> Again, what do you think about simply using counting the packets and >> inserting only 1 every EM_FLOW_INSERT_PROB? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Daniele > > > As far as I know Ciara did some quick tests with a counter-based > implementation and it performed 5% worse for 1K and 4K flows than then > current patch. Perhaps we could find the reason for that and fix it, but I > also feel uncomfortable with deterministic insertion of every Nth flow. This > could lead to very strange lock-step phenomena with typical artificial test > work loads, which often generate flows round-robin. I would rather use a > random function, as you suggest, or count "cycles" differently when > compiling without DPDK.
Ok, using another pseudo random function when compiling without DPDK sounds good to me. > > I agree to making the parameter EM_FLOW_INSERT_PROB configurable for unit > test or other purposes. Should it be a new option in the OpenvSwitch table > in OVSDB or rather a run-time parameter to be changed with ovs-appctl? I think a new option in Openvswitch other_config would be appropriate. Thanks, Daniele > > Jan > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
