On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 8:46 AM Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> northd doesn't process changes incrementally, so it makes sense to
> accumulate more database updates and process them in bulk, so we can
> cover everything in a single recompute.
>
> ovsdb-server has a mechanism to start accumulating changes if the
> client doesn't receive them fast enough, but it relies on the receive
> buffer size, which is a few hundreds of KB on a typical system.
> Unfortunately, that is enough to queue up several hundreds of small
> updates, and it takes northd a lot of time to process them if poll
> intervals are large, receiving at most 50 messages on each iteration
> (half of which are updates for a _Server database).
>
> Calling ovsdb_idl_run() as long as something changes.  This allows to
> quickly process large bursts of database updates.  For example, it
> takes only 30-40 seconds for 'ovn-nbctl --wait=hv sync' to finish on
> a 500-node cluster after the startup phase of the density-heavy
> ovn-heater test, instead of 6-8 minutes without this change.
>
> 500 ms seems like a reasonable hard limit to avoid spinning for too
> long if the database is changed constantly at a fast pace.
>
> Very long polling is also logged at INFO level to notify users.
> Not using WARN or higher because it may happen under normal conditions,
> e.g. on the initial connection to a large database or another type
> of a single large update.  Other notable polling attempts are logged
> at debug level.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
> ---
>  northd/ovn-northd.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/northd/ovn-northd.c b/northd/ovn-northd.c
> index bd35802ed..96f17f15f 100644
> --- a/northd/ovn-northd.c
> +++ b/northd/ovn-northd.c
> @@ -685,6 +685,36 @@ get_probe_interval(const char *db, const struct
nbrec_nb_global *nb)
>      return interval;
>  }
>
> +static struct ovsdb_idl_txn *
> +run_idl_loop(struct ovsdb_idl_loop *idl_loop, const char *name)
> +{
> +    unsigned long long duration, start = time_msec();
> +    unsigned int seqno = UINT_MAX;
> +    struct ovsdb_idl_txn *txn;
> +    int n = 0;
> +
> +    /* Accumulate database changes as long as there are some,
> +     * but no longer than half a second. */
> +    while (seqno != ovsdb_idl_get_seqno(idl_loop->idl)
> +           && time_msec() - start < 500) {
> +        seqno = ovsdb_idl_get_seqno(idl_loop->idl);
> +        ovsdb_idl_run(idl_loop->idl);
> +        n++;
> +    }
> +
> +    txn = ovsdb_idl_loop_run(idl_loop);
> +
> +    duration = time_msec() - start;
> +    /* ovsdb_idl_run() is called at least 2 times.  Once directly and
> +     * once in the ovsdb_idl_loop_run().  n > 2 means that we received
> +     * data on at least 2 subsequent calls. */
> +    if (n > 2 || duration > 100) {
> +        VLOG(duration > 500 ? VLL_INFO : VLL_DBG,
> +             "%s IDL run: %d iterations in %lld ms", name, n + 1,
duration);
> +    }
> +    return txn;
> +}
> +
>  int
>  main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> @@ -821,8 +851,8 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
>                  ovsdb_idl_set_lock(ovnsb_idl_loop.idl, "ovn_northd");
>              }
>
> -            struct ovsdb_idl_txn *ovnnb_txn =
> -                        ovsdb_idl_loop_run(&ovnnb_idl_loop);
> +            struct ovsdb_idl_txn *ovnnb_txn =
run_idl_loop(&ovnnb_idl_loop,
> +
"OVN_Northbound");
>              unsigned int new_ovnnb_cond_seqno =
>
 ovsdb_idl_get_condition_seqno(ovnnb_idl_loop.idl);
>              if (new_ovnnb_cond_seqno != ovnnb_cond_seqno) {
> @@ -833,8 +863,8 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
>                  ovnnb_cond_seqno = new_ovnnb_cond_seqno;
>              }
>
> -            struct ovsdb_idl_txn *ovnsb_txn =
> -                        ovsdb_idl_loop_run(&ovnsb_idl_loop);
> +            struct ovsdb_idl_txn *ovnsb_txn =
run_idl_loop(&ovnsb_idl_loop,
> +
"OVN_Southbound");
>              unsigned int new_ovnsb_cond_seqno =
>
 ovsdb_idl_get_condition_seqno(ovnsb_idl_loop.idl);
>              if (new_ovnsb_cond_seqno != ovnsb_cond_seqno) {
> --
> 2.34.3
>

Thanks Ilya for the great improvement! Applied to main.
It is not a bug fix but it seems a good candidate for backporting to 22.09
given that the change is small and we haven't released yet. @Mark Michelson
<[email protected]> @Numan Siddique <[email protected]> what do you think?

Han
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to