On 01/15/2019 10:44 AM, Nitin Katiyar wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Stokes [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:06 AM >> To: Nitin Katiyar <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>; Ilya Maximets >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v5] Adding support for PMD auto load >> balancing >> >> On 1/14/2019 10:44 AM, Nitin Katiyar wrote: >>> Port rx queues that have not been statically assigned to PMDs are >>> currently assigned based on periodically sampled load measurements. >>> The assignment is performed at specific instances – port addition, >>> port deletion, upon reassignment request via CLI etc. >>> >>> Due to change in traffic pattern over time it can cause uneven load >>> among the PMDs and thus resulting in lower overall throughout. >>> >>> This patch enables the support of auto load balancing of PMDs based on >>> measured load of RX queues. Each PMD measures the processing load for >>> each of its associated queues every 10 seconds. If the aggregated PMD >>> load reaches 95% for 6 consecutive intervals then PMD considers itself to >> be overloaded. >>> >>> If any PMD is overloaded, a dry-run of the PMD assignment algorithm is >>> performed by OVS main thread. The dry-run does NOT change the existing >>> queue to PMD assignments. >>> >>> If the resultant mapping of dry-run indicates an improved distribution >>> of the load then the actual reassignment will be performed. >>> >>> The automatic rebalancing will be disabled by default and has to be >>> enabled via configuration option. The interval (in minutes) between >>> two consecutive rebalancing can also be configured via CLI, default is >>> 1 min. >>> >>> Following example commands can be used to set the auto-lb params: >>> ovs-vsctl set open_vswitch . other_config:pmd-auto-lb="true" >>> ovs-vsctl set open_vswitch . other_config:pmd-auto-lb-rebalance-intvl="5" >>> >> Thanks for the patch Nitin. A few comments below. >> >> On An aside, there was discussion if this could be part of OVS 2.11 from the >> community call last week. Although this is a v5 I believe it has been under >> review and testing from the folks at Red Hat however I don't see any acks to >> date. >>
I've been reviewing and testing it since the RFC. At this stage it LGTM Acked-by: Kevin Traynor <[email protected]> Tested-by: Kevin Traynor <[email protected]> >> What are peoples thoughts? >> >> This change seems quite contained and doesn't interfere with default cases >> where rxq isolation, round robin or cycle based assignment is used. >> >> In testing the previous balancing still work work fine and the new load >> balancing works well also although I have queries on default values which are >> specific to use cases discussed below. >> >> Do people feel there is any reason to hold off merging if the issues below >> are >> addressed and there are no other concerns? >> >>> Co-authored-by: Rohith Basavaraja <[email protected]> >>> Co-authored-by: Venkatesan Pradeep >> <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Rohith Basavaraja <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesan Pradeep <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Nitin Katiyar <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
