On 10/14/21 12:49, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > On 10/14/21 12:45 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>> On 9/25/21 12:19 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>>> Introduce memory accounting for: >>>> - binding local_lports map >>>> - binding related_lports map >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> controller/binding.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> controller/binding.h | 5 ++++ >>>> controller/ovn-controller.c | 5 ++-- >>>> 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/controller/binding.c b/controller/binding.c >>>> index 661b4bb24..ec1e8bec7 100644 >>>> --- a/controller/binding.c >>>> +++ b/controller/binding.c >>>> @@ -39,6 +39,31 @@ >>>> >>>> VLOG_DEFINE_THIS_MODULE(binding); >>>> >>>> +static uint64_t local_lports_usage; >>>> +static uint64_t related_lports_usage; >>>> + >>>> +static void >>>> +sset_mem_update(uint64_t *usage, struct sset *set, >>>> + const char *name, bool erase) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct sset_node *node = sset_find(set, name); >>>> + >>>> + if (!node && !erase) { /* add new element */ >>>> + *usage += (sizeof *node + strlen(name)); >>>> + } else if (node && erase) { /* remove an element */ >>>> + *usage -= (sizeof *node + strlen(name)); >>>> + } >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void >>>> +sset_mem_clear(struct sset *set, uint64_t *usage) >>>> +{ >>>> + const char *name; >>>> + SSET_FOR_EACH (name, set) { >>>> + sset_mem_update(usage, set, name, true); >>>> + } >>>> +} >>>> + >>> >>> I'm not too sure about this. These functions are very generic. I think >>> this should be part of the sset code itself. Maybe a sset should just >>> automatically (or if configured) track all the memory it owns? What do >>> you think? >> >> +Ilya >> >> I guess it would be a nice to have. sset are widely used but I do not think >> this patch will introduce a huge overhead. >> >> Regarding the specific patch we can remove it from the series in order to >> unlock it or we can have a local routines for the moment and then remove them >> when we have sset support. What do you think? > > I don't really expect the local_lports and related_lports ssets to grow > too big so I think we can probably wait with this patch until we have a > more generic solution, maybe directly in sset.
I'm not sure about this. Calling strlen for every add/remove sounds costly for a generic sset. > > Regards, > Dumitru > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
