On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:21:28 -0700
Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Jakub Sitnicki <j...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 May 2018 10:14:50 -0700
> > Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > +# vec_sub VEC_A VEC_B
> > > > +#
> > > > +# Subtracts two vectors:
> > > > +#
> > > > +# VEC_A = [a1, a2, ...]
> > > > +# VEC_B = [b1, b2, ...]
> > > > +# OUT = [(a1 - b1), (a2 - b2), ...]
> > > > +#
> > > > +# VEC_A and VEC_B must be lists of values separated by a character
> from
> > > $IFS.
> > > > +vec_sub() {
> > > > + local a b i j
> > > > +
> > > > + i=0
> > > > + for a in $1; do
> > > > + j=0
> > > > + for b in $2; do
> > > > + if test $i -eq $j; then
> > > > + expr $a - $b
> > > > + break
> > > > + fi
> > > > + j=`expr $j + 1`
> > > > + done
> > > > + i=`expr $i + 1`
> > > > + done
> > >
> > > The loop is O(n^2) while ideally it can be O(n). I think it is not a big
> > > deal since it is testing, and I don't have better idea how to achieve
> O(n)
> > > while keeping the current convenient input parameters. Just to confirm
> it
> > > is not supposed to be used in scalability testing environment to
> calculate
> > > counters for thousands of sandboxes, right?
> >
> > Oh, no, I would not be brave enough to go testing 1000's of sandboxes
> > with shell scripts. For that scale I would rewrite the whole test to
> > Python probably.
> >
> > This is the best I could come up with, w/o going into Bash arrays. It
> > is intended only for the scale we test at in the automated test suite.
> > So just a few sandboxes as most.
> >
> Agree. It is totally fine for this test suite.
>
> How about my other comment:
> > > > + # Bind port $lp
> > > + OVN_CONTROLLER_EXPECT_HIT(
>
> > > For port binding, we should expect recompute on the HV where the port
> is bound to, and expect no recompute on all other HVs.
>
> > > + [hv1 hv2], [lflow_run],
> > > + [as $hv ovs-vsctl add-port br-int $vif -- set Interface $vif
> external-ids:iface-id=$lp]
> > > + )
>
> For example, after binding on hv1, we should expect lflow_run counter
> increased on hv1, but not on hv2. We want to ensure incremental
> port-binding processing is taking effect on hv2. OVN_CONTROLLER_EXPECT_HIT
> checks the total count, but doesn't tell the differences for each HV. I
> think we can split this test into two.
Apologies, I've missed your other comment.
Yes, I saw what you're describing in with a PoC script I did before
rewriting it in Autotest:
https://github.com/jsitnicki/tools/blob/master/net/ovn/example_count_lflow_run.txt
I was considering making the EXPECT_HIT check less coarse but decided to
keep it simple at first. It's certainly something I would like to
improve.
> And I just thought about another problem in this port-binding test. It is
> better to combine with the wait-until ... up="true" test, and do a
> ovn-nbctl --wait=hv sync, so that we are sure the ovn-controller already
> processed the port-binding. Otherwise, the test could easily fail due to
> timing issue.
Good point, I did not think of that. Having the EXPECT_{HIT,NO_HIT}
accept a batch of commands could be doable with some m4_foreach magic.
I will need to give it a try.
> BTW, can I fold your patch into my incremental patch series so that I can
> use it and add more test cases on top of it? I am not sure about the
> practice in this community when two or more people are working on patches
> that depends on each other. Can I just keep everything in your patch
> (including Signed-off-by) and also add a comment that the patch is from
> you, so that when the committer (most likely blp) will commit with the
> correct Author in github?
Yes, sure. Feel free to pull these patches into your series. I'm
glad they will be of use.
Meanwhile, I will try to add the two enhancements we're discussing
here.
Thanks,
Jakub
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
