> On 27/06/2018 14:58, Ian Stokes wrote: > > This commit re-introduces the concept of shared mempools as the > > default memory model for DPDK devices. Per port mempools are still > > available but must be enabled explicitly by a user. > > > > OVS previously used a shared mempool model for ports with the same MTU > > and socket configuration. This was replaced by a per port mempool > > model to address issues flagged by users such as: > > > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2016-September/0425 > > 60.html > > > > However the per port model potentially requires an increase in memory > > resource requirements to support the same number of ports and > > configuration as the shared port model. > > > > This is considered a blocking factor for current deployments of OVS > > when upgrading to future OVS releases as a user may have to > > redimension memory for the same deployment configuration. This may not > > be possible for users. > > > > This commit resolves the issue by re-introducing shared mempools as > > the default memory behaviour in OVS DPDK but also refactors the memory > > configuration code to allow for per port mempools. > > > > This patch adds a new global config option, per-port-memory, that > > controls the enablement of per port mempools for DPDK devices. > > > > ovs-vsctl set Open_vSwitch . other_config:per-port-memory=true > > > > This value defaults to false; to enable per port memory support, this > > field should be set to true when setting other global parameters on > > init (such as "dpdk-socket-mem", for example). Changing the value at > > runtime is not supported, and requires restarting the vswitch daemon. > > > > The mempool sweep functionality is also replaced with the sweep > > functionality from OVS 2.9 found in commits > > > > c77f692 (netdev-dpdk: Free mempool only when no in-use mbufs.) > > a7fb0a4 (netdev-dpdk: Add mempool reuse/free debug.) > > > > A new document to discuss the specifics of the memory models and > > example memory requirement calculations is also added. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Stokes <[email protected]> > > Hi Ian, > > Thanks for your work on this. > > I've tested with the same set up I had for RFC v1 (re-configuring MTUs of > existing ports, adding new ports, deleting existing ones, etc) and things > still work the same. > > I don't have additional concerns either, as my comments from RFC v1 have > been addressed / clarified and the code looks more straightforward now. > > Acked-by: Tiago Lam <[email protected]> > Tested-by: Tiago Lam <[email protected]>
Thanks Tiago, I'll add your acked/tested tags to the commit. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
