On 05/26/2017 03:55 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 10.03.2017 07:27, Daniele Di Proietto wrote:
>> 2017-02-21 6:49 GMT-08:00 Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com>:
>>> Reconfiguration of HW NICs may lead to packet drops.
>>> In current model all physical ports will be reconfigured each
>>> time number of PMD threads changed. Since we not stopping
>>> threads on pmd-cpu-mask changes, this patch will help to further
>>> decrease port's downtime by setting the maximum possible number
>>> of wanted tx queues to avoid unnecessary reconfigurations.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com>
>>
>> I haven't thought this through a lot, but the last big series we pushed
>> on master went exactly in the opposite direction, i.e. created one txq
>> for each thread in the datapath.
>>
>> I thought this was a good idea because:
>>
>> * On some systems with hyperthreading we can have a lot of cpus (we received
>> reports of systems with 72 cores). If you want to use only a couple of
>> cores
>> you're still forced to have a lot of unused txqs, which prevent you
>> from having
>> lockless tx.
>> * We thought that reconfiguring the number of pmds would not be a frequent
>> operation.
>>
>> Why do you want to reconfigure the threads that often? Is it to be
>> able to support more throughput quickly?
>
> Yes.
>
>> In this case I think we shouldn't use the number of cpus,
>> but something else coming from the user, so that the administrator can
>> balance how
>> quickly pmd threads can be reconfigured vs how many txqs should be on
>> the system.
>> I'm not sure how to make this user friendly though.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Right now I'm thinking about combined solution which will respect
> both issues (too big number of TXQs and frequent device reconfiguration).
> I think, we can implement additional function to get port's limitations.
> For now we can request the maximum number of TX queues from netdev and
> use it while number of cores less then number of queues.
> Something like this:
>
> lib/netdev-dpdk.c:
> uint32_t netdev_dpdk_get_max_txqs(struct netdev *netdev)
> {
> struct netdev_dpdk *dev = netdev_dpdk_cast(netdev);
> struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>
> ovs_mutex_lock(&dev->mutex);
> rte_eth_dev_info_get(dev->port_id, &dev_info);
> ovs_mutex_unlock(&dev->mutex);
>
> return dev_info.max_tx_queues;
> }
>
> lib/dpif-netdev.c:reconfigure_datapath():
>
> <----->
> max_tx_queues = netdev_get_max_txqs(port->netdev);
> number_of_threads = cmap_count(&dp->poll_threads);
> wanted_txqs = MAX(max_tx_queues, number_of_threads);
> <----->
>
> In this implementation there will be no additional locking if number of
> threads less or equal to maximum possible number of tx queues in HW.
>
> What do you think? Ian? Darrell?
>
I'm not sure about using rte_eth_dev_info_get() as IIRC there was
problems previously with it reporting a number, but then when you went
to configure them they were not all available depending on mode. That
was why the trial and error queue configure was put in.
What about replacing 'max_tx_queues' above with a number like 16 that is
likely to be supported by the ports and unlikely be exceeded by
number_of_threads?
Kevin.
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Daniele
>>
>>> ---
>>> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>>> index 6e575ab..e2b4f39 100644
>>> --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>>> @@ -3324,7 +3324,11 @@ reconfigure_datapath(struct dp_netdev *dp)
>>> * on the system and the user configuration. */
>>> reconfigure_pmd_threads(dp);
>>>
>>> - wanted_txqs = cmap_count(&dp->poll_threads);
>>> + /* We need 1 Tx queue for each possible cpu core. */
>>> + wanted_txqs = ovs_numa_get_n_cores();
>>> + ovs_assert(wanted_txqs != OVS_CORE_UNSPEC);
>>> + /* And 1 Tx queue for non-PMD threads. */
>>> + wanted_txqs++;
>>>
>>> /* The number of pmd threads might have changed, or a port can be new:
>>> * adjust the txqs. */
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> d...@openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
