>There two ways to go with the design. > >1) Make it generic, so that it is not so PMD specific, as it is now. >2) If it stays PMD specific, make it stronger; right now, the health check is >limited – it detects that a PMD thread is proceeding or not. >For something like DPDK, I don’t think that will be enough in the long run. >This can result in some false negatives, as well. > Maybe, we want to know that the ports and queues are getting >processed, PMD/port/queue mappings as expected, time spent processing >packets per PMD, port state changes, packet stats, queue depths, etc This >information could be correlated by the final receiver of the data.
Darrell, Thanks for the feedback. I am implementing this for OvS-DPDK and so it would be PMD specific at this point. However I completely agree with your suggestions here and would try extending the monitoring to factor in ports & packet stats and other parameters to make sure there aren't any false negatives. > >I also agree that socket communication is preferred over shm, although I don’t >think any shm usage will necessarily lead to a meltdown. As the consensus is to have Unix domain sockets over SHM, I will make necessary changes. Regards, Bhanuprakash. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev