On 07/22/2017 03:52 PM, Stokes, Ian wrote: >> Previously rxqs were assigned to pmds by round robin in port/queue order. >> >> Now that we have the processing cycles used for existing rxqs, use that >> information to try and produced a better balanced distribution of rxqs >> across pmds. i.e. given multiple pmds, the rxqs which have consumed the >> largest amount of processing cycles will be placed on different pmds. >> >> The rxqs are sorted by their processing cycles and assigned (in sorted >> order) round robin across pmds. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> >> --- >> Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst | 10 +++++++ >> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> ----- >> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst b/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst >> index af01d3e..d9ac8d3 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst >> @@ -119,4 +119,14 @@ After that PMD threads on cores where RX queues was >> pinned will become >> thread. >> >> +If pmd-rxq-affinity is not set for rxqs, they will be assigned to pmds >> +automatically. The processing cycles that have been required for each >> +rxq will be used where known to assign rxqs with the highest >> +consumption of processing cycles to different pmds. >> + >> +Rxq to pmds assignment takes place whenever there are configuration >> +changes or can be triggered by using:: >> + >> + $ ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/pmd-rxq-rebalance >> + > I think an illustrated example of the expected assignment behavior would be > beneficial here to give users a feel for what's happening under the hood. > > Something simple like how 4 queues would be distributed over 3 pmds, although > this change might make more sense to be rolled in with patch 6 when the pmd > selection process is modified. >
Sure. Yeah, I agree it makes more sense when the algorithm is finalized, so I added it there. >> QoS >> --- >> diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c index 185de9b..7663dba >> 100644 >> --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c >> +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c >> @@ -3289,8 +3289,29 @@ rr_numa_list_destroy(struct rr_numa_list *rr) } >> >> +/* Sort Rx Queues by the processing cycles they are consuming. */ >> +static int rxq_cycle_sort(const void *a, const void *b) { >> + struct dp_netdev_rxq * qa; >> + struct dp_netdev_rxq * qb; >> + >> + qa = *(struct dp_netdev_rxq **) a; >> + qb = *(struct dp_netdev_rxq **) b; >> + >> + if (dp_netdev_rxq_get_cycles(qa, RXQ_CYCLES_PROC_LAST) >= >> + dp_netdev_rxq_get_cycles(qb, RXQ_CYCLES_PROC_LAST)) { >> + return -1; >> + } >> + >> + return 1; >> +} >> + >> /* Assign pmds to queues. If 'pinned' is true, assign pmds to pinned >> * queues and marks the pmds as isolated. Otherwise, assign non isolated >> * pmds to unpinned queues. >> * >> + * If 'pinned' is false queues will be sorted by processing cycles they >> + are >> + * consuming and then assigned to pmds in round robin order. >> + * >> * The function doesn't touch the pmd threads, it just stores the >> assignment >> * in the 'pmd' member of each rxq. */ >> @@ -3300,18 +3321,14 @@ rxq_scheduling(struct dp_netdev *dp, bool pinned) >> OVS_REQUIRES(dp->port_mutex) >> struct dp_netdev_port *port; >> struct rr_numa_list rr; >> - >> - rr_numa_list_populate(dp, &rr); >> + struct dp_netdev_rxq ** rxqs = NULL; >> + int i, n_rxqs = 0; >> + struct rr_numa *numa = NULL; >> + int numa_id; >> >> HMAP_FOR_EACH (port, node, &dp->ports) { >> - struct rr_numa *numa; >> - int numa_id; >> - >> if (!netdev_is_pmd(port->netdev)) { >> continue; >> } >> >> - numa_id = netdev_get_numa_id(port->netdev); >> - numa = rr_numa_list_lookup(&rr, numa_id); >> - >> for (int qid = 0; qid < port->n_rxq; qid++) { >> struct dp_netdev_rxq *q = &port->rxqs[qid]; @@ -3331,17 >> +3348,39 @@ rxq_scheduling(struct dp_netdev *dp, bool pinned) >> OVS_REQUIRES(dp->port_mutex) >> } >> } else if (!pinned && q->core_id == OVS_CORE_UNSPEC) { >> - if (!numa) { >> - VLOG_WARN("There's no available (non isolated) pmd >> thread " >> - "on numa node %d. Queue %d on port \'%s\' >> will " >> - "not be polled.", >> - numa_id, qid, netdev_get_name(port- >>> netdev)); >> + if (n_rxqs == 0) { >> + rxqs = xmalloc(sizeof *rxqs); >> } else { >> - q->pmd = rr_numa_get_pmd(numa); >> + rxqs = xrealloc(rxqs, sizeof *rxqs * (n_rxqs + 1)); >> } >> + /* Store the queue. */ >> + rxqs[n_rxqs++] = q; >> } >> } >> } >> >> + if (n_rxqs > 1) { >> + /* Sort the queues in order of the processing cycles >> + * they consumed during their last pmd interval. */ >> + qsort(rxqs, n_rxqs, sizeof *rxqs, rxq_cycle_sort); >> + } >> + >> + rr_numa_list_populate(dp, &rr); >> + /* Assign the sorted queues to pmds in round robin. */ >> + for (i = 0; i < n_rxqs; i++) { >> + numa_id = netdev_get_numa_id(rxqs[i]->port->netdev); >> + numa = rr_numa_list_lookup(&rr, numa_id); >> + if (!numa) { >> + VLOG_WARN("There's no available (non isolated) pmd thread " >> + "on numa node %d. Queue %d on port \'%s\' will " >> + "not be polled.", >> + numa_id, netdev_rxq_get_queue_id(rxqs[i]->rx), >> + netdev_get_name(rxqs[i]->port->netdev)); >> + continue; >> + } >> + rxqs[i]->pmd = rr_numa_get_pmd(numa); >> + } >> + >> rr_numa_list_destroy(&rr); >> + free(rxqs); >> } >> >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev