> On 01/10/2018 08:14 AM, Jan Scheurich wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have just sent out a series with patches #1 and #2 as agreed. They > address comments by Ilya on #1 and the draft for nestable cycle counters. > > > > I haven't done extensive tests yet as I wanted to share as early as > possible. > > I will continue to test and prepare a rebased v6 of the remainder of the > PMD metrics #3c series soon. > > > > Looking forward to review and test rebased #3a and #3b. > > > > BR, Jan > > Hi Jan/all - I just sent a new version of the balance stats (3b) in reply > to the original series. I liked that it was being simplified to not count > the rxq idle cycles in the merged series version but there was still a lot > of code for storage/calculations of % of pmd in the rxqs. It got me > thinking that it could be simplified a lot more by moving these directly > to the pmd, so I did that. > > I think it is now pretty independent of the other patch sets that are > being developed around the pmd, so there should be no dependency issues. > Probably at most a trivial rebase if other patches got merged before or > after it.
+1, I think this set looks fairly independent now, I'll have some spare cycles this evening to take a look. Ian > > thanks, > Kevin. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Scheurich > >> Sent: Tuesday, 09 January, 2018 14:58 > >> To: Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>; Ilya Maximets > >> <[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/8] dpif-netdev: Refactor cycle > >> count and rebased patches > >> > >>>>>> My suggestion would be to start with the least controversial > >>>>>> refactoring first so that we do not introduce complex things in > >>>>>> one > >> patch > >>>>> that we then throw out in the next one again. By that let's try to > >>>>> make the actual feature patches as small and independent as > >> possible. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here’s my suggestions: > >>>>>> 1. dpif-netdev: Refactor PMD performance into dpif-netdev-perf 2. > >>>>>> dpif-netdev: Refactor cycle counting (nestable cycle timer) 3a. > >>>>>> Time-based tx batching > >>>>>> dpif-netdev: Use microsecond granularity. > >>>>>> dpif-netdev: Count cycles on per-rxq basis. (using the nestable > cycle timers) > >>>>>> dpif-netdev: Time based output batching. > >>>>>> docs: Describe output packet batching in DPDK guide. > >>>>>> NEWS: Mark output packet batching support. > >>>>>> 3b. dpif-netdev: Add percentage of pmd/core used by each rxq. > >>>>>> 3c. Detailed PMD Performance metrics > >>>>>> dpif-netdev: Detailed performance stats for PMDs > >>>>>> dpif-netdev: Detection and logging of suspicious PMD iterations > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>> > >>>>> Basically, this looks good to me. But I still think that we should > >>>>> work on that step-by-step not tying to make all the work at once. > >>>>> This will save time of rebasing on intermediate versions of patches. > >>>> > >>>> Fine with me as long as that doesn't stop review and testing of the > >>>> not yet rebased patches 3a-c. We need those tests and reviews to > >>>> find and address any deficiencies inherent in the feature > (independent from rebasing). > >>>> > >>> > >>> I'm not sure if there is some reason you have tied those patches (3) > >>> together. I thought the idea now was to keep things separate? > >> > >> The idea is to have them as decoupled as possible once the first two > >> refactoring patches are in place. Ideally one could apply them in any > order. At least with much less effort than currently and lots of reverting > changes. I didn't want to imply any specific order here. > >> > >>> > >>> I'm making a few edits on 3b atm. Can possibly take this out of the > >>> chain. It applies without any of the other patches, but I'm not sure > >>> if it's functional yet. > >> > >> It should apply after refactoring patches #1 and #2. Otherwise we > >> will have even more work to do the refactoring later. Do you work on > the simplified version I proposed? > >> > >>> > >>>>> I'll try to spend some time from the rest of today to check out > "nestable cycle timers". > >>>>> Would like to see fixed patch from #1 and a proper patch for #2. > >>>> > >>>> I will try to send out patches for #1 (v6) and #2 this afternoon. > >>>> > >>>>> Step #3a should not be hard. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> @Ian, Kevin and Billy: Should we anyway have a short Skype chat? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think we have a plan, let's skip and keep on email. > >> > >> Fine with me. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
