On 02/08/2018 12:19 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As discussed on the OVS-DPDK community call, I've manually reverted the per >> port mempool changes in OVS-DPDK on a branch on my own git hub. This had to >> be re-introduced manually due to the number of commits and work that had >> went on top of the per port implementation. >> >> For testing people can access it from the link below: >> >> https://github.com/istokes/ovs/tree/mempool_revert >> >> If we are to revert this in time for OVS 2.9 there is a need for validation >> among the community to ensure that it does not break any features. I have >> validated most existing features with VSperf but I'm more interested in >> ensuring existing user test cases do not break with this revert. > > I thought that we wanted to update the documentation for now with new > memory requirements, prepare new mempool model for 2.10 and backport it > to 2.9 if necessary., As mentioned here: > > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-January/046101.html > > I'm sorry, but I see no meeting minutes for the latest OVS-DPDK sync call. >
As per other mail - just haven't had time to send yet. Will send shortly. > In general, I think that temporary reverting of the current model looks not > so pretty. Especially if we're going to almost revert this revertion in the > future. > I think it's a pretty clean revert. I've reviewed it and tested out things like MTU reconfig, sharing, not sharing mempools etc. It is not clear that a few fixes on branch-2.9 will make the per port mempool ok to use. It seems strange that OVS 2.9 would go out with backwards compatibility broken but with a promise it will try to be fixed in the future on the branch with *new* memory model development. AFAIK, there is no proposal for what the new memory model would look like. > Does you RFC patch intended for branch-2.9 only? In this case it may be > acceptable. We'll continue working on current model for 2.10 to fix all > the issues or implement some completely new model. And branch-2.9 will be > left with shared mempool model forever. Did I understand correctly? > Good point about possible difference in branch-2.9 vs. master. I was thinking about branch-2.9 only wrt revert. If there is a thought that mempool per port can be fixed or could be useful as part of a user choice etc., then maybe it would make sense to not revert on master, subject to more development of a better solution. > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > It's not perfect, but we've replaced something that has been working with little or no complaints for 4 years with something that breaks backwards compatibility for some users, and some (like Jan) possibly can't even use OVS at all like this. I think it makes sense to revert it for OVS 2.9 and rethink how to make memory scale - maybe that will be per port memory pools with fixes, maybe some hybrid scheme, maybe some sort of user intervention to choose scheme or memory sizes. thanks, Kevin. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
