On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:52:57PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 10/05/2016 12:37:26 PM: > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > > Date: 10/05/2016 12:37 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v2,2/4] ovn-controller: add quiet mode > > > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:11:37PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 10/04/2016 12:14:32 PM: > > > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > > > > Date: 10/04/2016 12:14 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v2,2/4] ovn-controller: add quiet mode > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 03:22:44PM +0000, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > > > As discussed in [1], what the incremental processing code > > > > > actually accomplished was that the ovn-controller would > > > > > be "quiet" and not burn CPU when things weren't changing. > > > > > This patch set recreates this state by calculating whether > > > > > changes have occured that would require a full calculation > > > > > to be performed. It does this by persisting a copy of > > > > > the localvif_to_ofport and tunnel information in the > > > > > controller module, rather than in the physical.c module > > > > > as was the case with previous commits. > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-August/078272.html > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > Hi Ryan. > > > > > > > > I like the idea behind this patch. However, it no longer applies to > > > > master, so it needs a rebase. > > > > > > So done, but before submitting a new patch.... > > > > > > > > > > > It also seems like this TODO should be addressed: > > > > + /* TODO (regXboi): this next line is needed for the 3 HVs, 3 > LS, > > > > + * 3 lports/LS, 1 LR test case, but has the potential side > > > effect > > > > + * of defeating quiet mode once a logical router leads to > > > creating > > > > + * patch ports. Need to understand the failure mode better > and > > > > + * what is needed to remove this. */ > > > > + force_full_process(); > > > > > > I've been looking at what happens here and I'm seeing some signatures > > > that concern me. The test case that fails is no longer the cited one > above > > > but is "2 HVs, 4 lports/HV, localnet ports" ... > > > > > > What I'm seeing when I peer in is that the information populating the > > > local_datapath structures doesn't appear to be consistent on each pass > > > through binding_run: Looking at the ovn-controller process under hv2 > > > for the above test (when it passes), I'll see signatures that look > > > like the following: > > > > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.257Z|00020|physical|INFO|looking at binding record > > > 3736404b-c69d-4878-8d45-81ad9be06f5f > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.257Z|00021|physical|INFO|dp_key is 1 > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.257Z|00022|physical|INFO|looking for ofport of lp11 > > > (LP) > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.257Z|00023|physical|INFO|looking for ofport of ln1 > > > (localnet) > > > ... > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.259Z|00034|physical|INFO|looking at binding record > > > 3736404b-c69d-4878-8d45-81ad9be06f5f > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.259Z|00035|physical|INFO|dp_key is 1 > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.259Z|00036|physical|INFO|looking for ofport of lp11 > > > (LP) > > > 2016-10-04T21:57:58.259Z|00037|physical|INFO|looking for tunnel to hv1 > > > ... > > > > This sort of oscillation seems super-weird to me. I'd also like to > > learn more. > > > > I found the problem and fixed it in the v3 patch set - some of the methods > (patch_run for example) now include a test of ovs_idl_txn before they run > and some don't (physical_run for example), so you can see guess what was > happening... > > (If we had a txn to work with everything is fine, but without one, > physical_run was trying to calculate flows based on local datapaths > with no localnet ports being defined, which leads to the above > oscillation.) > > I added a txn check to the logic for whether to call things or not in > ovn-controller.c and I added a note in the email about thinking that a > follow-on patch to clean up all of the ovs_idl_txn gates might make sense > (so that nobody trips on this in the future)
It sounds like you found a bug that should be fixed independent of "quiet mode". Should it be two patches, one of which we backport to branch-2.6? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
