On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:13 AM Numan Siddique <nusid...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:25 PM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez <
dalva...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Numan for running these tests outside OpenStack!
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:50 AM Numan Siddique <nusid...@redhat.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:31 AM Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:42 PM Numan Siddique <nusid...@redhat.com>
wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 11:47 AM Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:16 AM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez <
dalva...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Thanks a lot Han for the answer!
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:57 PM Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:12 AM Dumitru Ceara <
dce...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:40 AM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez
>> >> > >> > > > <dalva...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > Hi Han, all,
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > Lucas, Numan and I have been doing some 'scale' testing
of OpenStack
>> >> > >> > > > > using OVN and wanted to present some results and issues
that we've
>> >> > >> > > > > found with the Incremental Processing feature in
ovn-controller. Below
>> >> > >> > > > > is the scenario that we executed:
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > * 7 baremetal nodes setup: 3 controllers (running
>> >> > >> > > > > ovn-northd/ovsdb-servers in A/P with pacemaker) + 4
compute nodes. OVS
>> >> > >> > > > > 2.10.
>> >> > >> > > > > * The test consists on:
>> >> > >> > > > > - Create openstack network (OVN LS), subnet and router
>> >> > >> > > > > - Attach subnet to the router and set gw to the
external network
>> >> > >> > > > > - Create an OpenStack port and apply a Security Group
(ACLs to allow
>> >> > >> > > > > UDP, SSH and ICMP).
>> >> > >> > > > > - Bind the port to one of the 4 compute nodes
(randomly) by
>> >> > >> > > > > attaching it to a network namespace.
>> >> > >> > > > > - Wait for the port to be ACTIVE in Neutron ('up ==
True' in NB)
>> >> > >> > > > > - Wait until the test can ping the port
>> >> > >> > > > > * Running browbeat/rally with 16 simultaneous process to
execute the
>> >> > >> > > > > test above 150 times.
>> >> > >> > > > > * When all the 150 'fake VMs' are created, browbeat will
delete all
>> >> > >> > > > > the OpenStack/OVN resources.
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > We first tried with OVS/OVN 2.10 and pulled some results
which showed
>> >> > >> > > > > 100% success but ovn-controller is quite loaded (as
expected) in all
>> >> > >> > > > > the nodes especially during the deletion phase:
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > - Compute node: https://imgur.com/a/tzxfrIR
>> >> > >> > > > > - Controller node (ovn-northd and ovsdb-servers):
https://imgur.com/a/8ffKKYF
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > After conducting the tests above, we replaced
ovn-controller in all 7
>> >> > >> > > > > nodes by the one with the current master branch
(actually from last
>> >> > >> > > > > week). We also replaced ovn-northd and ovsdb-servers but
the
>> >> > >> > > > > ovs-vswitchd has been left untouched (still on 2.10).
The expected
>> >> > >> > > > > results were to get less ovn-controller CPU usage and
also better
>> >> > >> > > > > times due to the Incremental Processing feature
introduced recently.
>> >> > >> > > > > However, the results don't look very good:
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > - Compute node: https://imgur.com/a/wuq87F1
>> >> > >> > > > > - Controller node (ovn-northd and ovsdb-servers):
https://imgur.com/a/99kiyDp
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > One thing that we can tell from the ovs-vswitchd CPU
consumption is
>> >> > >> > > > > that it's much less in the Incremental Processing (IP)
case which
>> >> > >> > > > > apparently doesn't make much sense. This led us to think
that perhaps
>> >> > >> > > > > ovn-controller was not installing the necessary flows in
the switch
>> >> > >> > > > > and we confirmed this hypothesis by looking into the
dataplane
>> >> > >> > > > > results. Out of the 150 VMs, 10% of them were
unreachable via ping
>> >> > >> > > > > when using ovn-controller from master.
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > @Han, others, do you have any ideas as of what could be
happening
>> >> > >> > > > > here? We'll be able to use this setup for a few more
days so let me
>> >> > >> > > > > know if you want us to pull some other data/traces, ...
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > Some other interesting things:
>> >> > >> > > > > On each of the compute nodes, (with an almost evenly
distributed
>> >> > >> > > > > number of logical ports bound to them), the max amount
of logical
>> >> > >> > > > > flows in br-int is ~90K (by the end of the test, right
before deleting
>> >> > >> > > > > the resources).
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > It looks like with the IP version, ovn-controller leaks
some memory:
>> >> > >> > > > > https://imgur.com/a/trQrhWd
>> >> > >> > > > > While with OVS 2.10, it remains pretty flat during the
test:
>> >> > >> > > > > https://imgur.com/a/KCkIT4O
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > Hi Daniel, Han,
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > I just sent a small patch for the ovn-controller memory
leak:
>> >> > >> > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1113758/
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > At least on my setup this is what valgrind was pointing at.
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > Cheers,
>> >> > >> > > > Dumitru
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > Looking forward to hearing back :)
>> >> > >> > > > > Daniel
>> >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > >> > > > > PS. Sorry for my previous email, I sent it by mistake
without the subject
>> >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > >> > > > > discuss mailing list
>> >> > >> > > > > disc...@openvswitch.org
>> >> > >> > > > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > Thanks Daniel for the testing and reporting, and thanks
Dumitru for fixing the memory leak.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > Currently ovn-controller incremental processing only handles
below SB changes incrementally:
>> >> > >> > > - logical_flow
>> >> > >> > > - port_binding (for regular VIF binding NOT on current
chassis)
>> >> > >> > > - mc_group
>> >> > >> > > - address_set
>> >> > >> > > - port_group
>> >> > >> > > - mac_binding
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > So, in test scenario you described, since each iteration
creates network (SB datapath changes) and router ports (port_binding
changes for non VIF), the incremental processing would not help much,
because most steps in your test should trigger recompute. It would help if
you create more Fake VMs in each iteration, e.g. create 10 VMs or more on
each LS. Secondly, when VIF port-binding happens on current chassis, the
ovn-controller will still do re-compute, and because you have only 4
compute nodes, so 1/4 of the compute node will still recompute even when
binding a regular VIF port. When you have more compute nodes you would see
incremental processing more effective.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Got it, it makes sense (although then worst case, it should be
at
>> >> > >> > least what we had before and not worse but it can also be
because
>> >> > >> > we're mixing version here: 2.10 vs master).
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > However, what really worries me is the 10% VM unreachable. I
have one confusion here on the test steps. The last step you described was:
- Wait until the test can ping the port. So if the VM is not pingable the
test won't continue?
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Sorry I should've explained it better. We wait for 2 minutes
to the
>> >> > >> > port to respond to pings, if it's not reachable then we
continue with
>> >> > >> > the next port (16 rally processes are running simultaneously
so the
>> >> > >> > rest of the process may be doing stuff at the same time).
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > To debug the problem, the first thing is to identify what
flows are missing for the VMs that is unreachable. Could you do ovs-appctl
ofproto/trace for the ICMP flow of any VM with ping failure? And then,
please enable debug log for ovn-controller with ovs-appctl -t
ovn-controller vlog/set file:dbg. There may be too many logs so please
enable it for as short time as any VM with ping failure is reproduced. If
the last step "wait until the test can ping the port" is there then it
should be able to detect the first occurrence if the VM is not reachable in
e.g. 30 sec.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > We'll need to hack a bit here but let's see :)
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > In the ovn-scale-test we didn't have data plane test, but
this problem was not seen in our live environment either, with a far larger
scale. The major difference in your test v.s. our environment are:
>> >> > >> > > - We are runing with an older version. So there might be
some rebase/refactor problem caused this. To eliminate this, I'd suggest to
try a branch I created for 2.10 (
https://github.com/hzhou8/ovs/tree/ip12_rebase_on_2.10), which matches the
base test you did which is also 2.10. It may also eliminate compatibility
problem, if there is any, between OVN master branch and OVS 2.10 as you
mentioned is used in the test.
>> >> > >> > > - We don't use Security Group (I guess the ~90k OVS flows
you mentioned were mainly introduced by the Security Group use, if all
ports were put in same group). The incremental processing is expected to be
correct for security-groups, and handling it incrementally because of
address_set and port_group incremental processing. However, since the
testing only relied on the regression tests, I am not 100% sure if the test
coverage was sufficient. So could you try disabling Security Group to rule
out the problem?
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Ok will try to repeat the tests without the SGs.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > >> > > Han
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Thanks once again!
>> >> > >> > Daniel
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Hi Daniel,
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Any updates? Do you still see the 10% VM unreachable
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Thanks,
>> >> > >> Han
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi Han,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > As such there is no datapath impact. After increasing the ping
wait timeout value from 120 seconds to 180 seconds its 100% now.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But the time taken to program the flows is too huge when compared
to OVN master without IP patches.
>> >> > > Here is some data - http://paste.openstack.org/show/753224/ . I
am still investigating it. I will update my findings in some time.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Please see the times for the action - vm.wait_for_ping
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks Numan for the investigation and update. Glad to hear there
is no correctness issue, but sorry for the slowness in your test scenario.
I expect that the operations in your test trigger recomputing and the worst
case should be similar performance as withour I-P. It is weird that it
turned out so much slower in your test. There can be some extra overhead
when it tries to do incremental processing and then fallback to full
recompute, but it shouldn't cause that big difference. It might be that for
some reason the main loop iteration is triggered more times unnecessarily.
I'd suggest to compare the coverage counter "lflow_run" between the tests,
and also check perf report to see if the hotspot is somewhere else. (Sorry
that I can't provide full-time help now since I am still on vacation but I
will try to be useful if things are blocked)
>> >>
>> >> Hi Numan/Daniel, do you have any new findings on why I-P got worse
result in your test? The extremely long latency (2 - 3 min) shown in your
report reminds me a similar problem I reported before:
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2018-April/346321.html
>> >>
>> >> The root cause of that problem was still not clear. In that report,
the extremely long latency (7 min) was observed without I-P and it didn't
happen with I-P. If it is the same problem, then I suspect it is not
related to I-P or non I-P, but some problem related to ovsdb monitor
condition change. To confirm if it is same problem, could you:
>> >> 1. pause the test when the scale is big enough (e.g. when the test is
almost completed), and then
>> >> 2. enable ovn-controller debug log, and then
>> >> 3. run one more iteration of the test, and see if the time was spent
on waiting for SB DB update notification.
>> >>
>> >> Please ignore my speculation above if you already found the root
cause and it would be great if you could share it :)
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for sharing this Han.
>> >
>> > I do not have any new findings. Yesterday I ran ovn-scale-test
comparing OVN with IP vs without IP (using the master branch).
>> > The test creates a new logical switch, adds it to a router, few ACLs
and creates 2 logical ports and pings between them.
>> > I am using physical deployment which creates actual namespaces instead
of sandboxes.
>> >
>> > The results doesn't show any huge difference between the two.
>> 2300 vs 2900 seconds total time or 44 vs 56 seconds for the 95%ile?
>> It is not negligible IMHO. It's a >25% penalty with the IP. Maybe I
>> missed something from the results?
>>
>
> Initially I ran with ovn-nbctl running commands as one batch (ie
combining commands with "--"). The results were very similar. Like this one
>
> *******
>
> With non IP - ovn-nbctl NO daemon mode
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Response Times (sec)
|
>
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
> | action | min | median | 90%ile |
95%ile | max | avg | success | count |
>
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
> | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.288 | 0.429 | 5.454 | 5.538
| 20.531 | 1.523 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.046 | 0.139 | 0.202 | 5.084
| 10.259 | 0.441 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.164 | 0.411 | 5.307 | 5.491
| 15.636 | 1.128 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn.create_lport | 0.11 | 0.272 | 0.478 | 5.284
| 15.496 | 0.835 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.302 | 2.367 | 2.834 | 3.24
| 12.409 | 2.527 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.0 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001
| 0.002 | 0.001 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.04 | 10.24 | 10.397 |
10.449 | 10.82 | 6.767 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | total | 2.219 | 13.903 | 23.068 |
24.538 | 49.437 | 13.222 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>
>
> With IP - ovn-nbctl NO daemon mode
>
> concurrency - 10
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Response Times (sec)
|
>
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
> | action | min | median | 90%ile |
95%ile | max | avg | success | count |
>
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
> | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.274 | 0.402 | 0.493 | 0.51
| 0.584 | 0.408 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.064 | 0.137 | 0.213 | 0.244
| 0.33 | 0.146 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.203 | 0.395 | 0.677 | 0.766
| 0.912 | 0.427 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn.create_lport | 0.13 | 0.261 | 0.437 | 0.497
| 0.604 | 0.283 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.307 | 2.374 | 2.816 | 2.904
| 3.401 | 2.325 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.0 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001
| 0.002 | 0.001 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.028 | 10.237 | 10.422 |
10.474 | 11.281 | 6.453 | 100.0% | 1000 |
> | total | 2.251 | 13.631 | 14.822 |
15.008 | 15.901 | 10.044 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>
> *****************
>
> The results I shared in the previous email were with ACLs added and
ovn-nbctl - batch mode disabled.
>
> I agree with you. Let me do few more runs to be sure that the results are
consistent.
>
> Thanks
> Numan
>
>
>> > I will test with OVN 2.9 vs 2.11 master along with what you have
suggested above and see if there are any problems related to ovsdb monitor
condition change.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Numan
>> >
>> > Below are the results
>> >
>> >
>> > With IP master - nbctl daemon node - No batch mode
>> > concurrency - 10
>> >
>> >
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> > | Response Times (sec)
|
>> >
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>> > | action | min | median | 90%ile |
95%ile | max | avg | success | count |
>> >
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>> > | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.269 | 0.661 | 10.426 |
15.422 | 37.259 | 3.721 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.313 | 0.45 | 12.107 |
15.373 | 30.405 | 4.185 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.163 | 0.255 | 10.121 |
10.64 | 20.475 | 2.655 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn.create_lport | 0.351 | 0.514 | 12.255 |
15.511 | 34.74 | 4.621 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.362 | 2.447 | 7.34 |
7.651 | 17.651 | 3.146 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.086 | 2.734 | 5.272 |
7.827 | 22.717 | 2.957 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.038 | 10.196 | 20.285 |
20.39 | 40.74 | 7.52 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | total | 2.862 | 27.267 | 49.956 |
56.39 | 90.884 | 28.808 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> >
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>> > Load duration: 2950.4133141
>> > Full duration: 2951.58845997 seconds
>> >
>> > ***********
>> > With non IP - nbctl daemin node -ACLs - No batch mode
>> >
>> > concurrency - 10
>> >
>> >
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> > | Response Times (sec)
|
>> >
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>> > | action | min | median | 90%ile |
95%ile | max | avg | success | count |
>> >
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>> > | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.267 | 0.421 | 10.395 |
10.735 | 25.501 | 3.09 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.314 | 0.408 | 10.331 |
10.483 | 25.357 | 3.049 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.153 | 0.249 | 6.552 |
10.268 | 20.545 | 2.236 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn.create_lport | 0.344 | 0.49 | 10.566 |
15.428 | 25.542 | 3.906 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.372 | 2.409 | 7.437 |
7.665 | 17.518 | 3.192 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.086 | 1.323 | 5.157 |
7.769 | 20.166 | 2.291 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.034 | 2.077 | 10.347 |
10.427 | 20.307 | 5.123 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> > | total | 3.109 | 21.26 | 39.245 |
44.495 | 70.197 | 22.889 | 100.0% | 1000 |
>> >
+---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+
>> > Load duration: 2328.11378407
>> > Full duration: 2334.43504095 seconds
>> >
>>
Hi Numan/Daniel,
I spent some time investigating this problem you reported. Thanks Numan for
the offline help sharing the details.
Although I still didn't reproduce the slowness in my current single node
testing env with almost same steps and ACLs shared by Numan, I think I may
have figured out a highy probable cause of what you have seen.
Here is my theory: there is a difference between the I-P and non-I-P in the
main loop. The non-I-P version checks ofctrl_can_put() before doing any
flow computation (which is introduced to solve a serious performance
problem when there are many OVS flows on a single node, see [1]). When
worked out the I-P version, I found this may not be the best approach,
since there can be new incremental changes coming and we want to process
them in current iteration incrementally, so that we don't need to fallback
to recompute in next iteration. So this logic is changed so that we always
prioritize computing new changes and keeping the desired flow table up to
date, while the in-flight messages to ovs-vswitchd may still pending for an
older version of desired state. In the end the final desired state will be
synced again to ovs-vswitchd. If there are new changes that triggers
recompute again, the recompute (which is always slow) will slow down the
ofctrl_run() which keeps sending old pending messages to ovs-vswitchd by
the same main thread. (But it won't cause the original performance problem
any more because incremental processing engine will not recompute when
there is no input change).
However, when the test scenario triggers recompute frequently, each single
change may take longer to be enforced in OVS, because of this new approach.
The later recompute iterations would slow down the previous computed OVS
flow installation. In your test you used parallel 10, which means at any
point there might be new changes from one client such as creating new
router that triggers recomputing, which can block the OVS flow installation
triggered earlier for another client. So overall you will see much bigger
latency for each individual test iteration.
This can also explain why I didn't reproduce the problem in my
single-client single-node environment, since each iteration is serialized.
[1]
https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/commit/74c760c8fe99d554b94423d49d13d5ca3dea0d9e
To prove this theory, could you help with two tests reusing your
environment? Thanks a lot!
1. Instead of parallelism of 10, try 1, to make sure the test is
serialized. I'd expect the result should be similar w/ v.s. w/o I-P.
2. Try below patch on the I-P version you are testing, to see if the
problem is gone.
----8><--------------------------------------------><8---------------
diff --git a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c
index 043abd6..0fcaa72 100644
--- a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c
+++ b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@ add_meter(struct ovn_extend_table_info *m_desired,
* in the correct state and not backlogged with existing flow_mods. (Our
* criteria for being backlogged appear very conservative, but the socket
* between ovn-controller and OVS provides some buffering.) */
-static bool
+bool
ofctrl_can_put(void)
{
if (state != S_UPDATE_FLOWS
diff --git a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h
index ed8918a..2b21c11 100644
--- a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h
+++ b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ void ofctrl_put(struct ovn_desired_flow_table *,
const struct sbrec_meter_table *,
int64_t nb_cfg,
bool flow_changed);
+bool ofctrl_can_put(void);
void ofctrl_wait(void);
void ofctrl_destroy(void);
int64_t ofctrl_get_cur_cfg(void);
diff --git a/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c
b/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c
index c4883aa..c85c6fa 100644
--- a/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c
+++ b/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c
@@ -1954,7 +1954,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
stopwatch_start(CONTROLLER_LOOP_STOPWATCH_NAME,
time_msec());
- if (ovnsb_idl_txn) {
+ if (ovnsb_idl_txn && ofctrl_can_put()) {
engine_run(&en_flow_output, ++engine_run_id);
}
stopwatch_stop(CONTROLLER_LOOP_STOPWATCH_NAME,
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
