> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Traynor [mailto:ktray...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 3:02 PM > To: Jan Scheurich <jan.scheur...@ericsson.com>; O Mahony, Billy > <billy.o.mah...@intel.com>; wangzh...@jd.com; Darrell Ball > <db...@vmware.com>; ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org; ovs- > d...@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] OVS DPDK NUMA pmd assignment question for > physical port > > On 09/06/2017 02:43 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote: > >> > >> I think the mention of pinning was confusing me a little. Let me see > >> if I fully understand your use case: You don't 'want' to pin > >> anything but you are using it as a way to force the distribution of rxq > >> from > a single nic across to PMDs on different NUMAs. As without pinning all rxqs > are assigned to the NUMA-local pmd leaving the other PMD totally unused. > >> > >> But then when you used pinning you the PMDs became isolated so the > >> vhostuser ports rxqs would not be assigned to the PMDs unless they too > were pinned. Which worked but was not manageable as VM (and vhost > ports) came and went. > >> > >> Yes? > > > > Yes!!! [[BO'M]] Hurrah! > > > >> > >> In that case what we probably want is the ability to pin an rxq to a > >> pmd but without also isolating the pmd. So the PMD could be assigned > some rxqs manually and still have others automatically assigned. > > > > Wonderful. That is exactly what I have wanted to propose for a while: > Separate PMD isolation from pinning of Rx queues. > > > > Tying these two together makes it impossible to use pinning of Rx queues > in OpenStack context (without the addition of dedicated PMDs/cores). And > even during manual testing it is a nightmare to have to manually pin all 48 > vhostuser queues just because we want to pin the two heavy-loaded Rx > queues to different PMDs. > > > > That sounds like it would be useful. Do you know in advance of running which > rxq's they will be? i.e. you know it's particular port and there is only one > queue. Or you don't know but analyze at runtime and then reconfigure? > > > The idea would be to introduce a separate configuration option for PMDs > to isolate them, and no longer automatically set that when pinning an rx > queue to the PMD. > > > > Please don't break backward compatibility. I think it would be better to keep > the existing command as is and add a new softer version that allows other > rxq's to be scheduled on that pmd also. [[BO'M]] Although is implicit isolation feature of pmd-rxq-affinity actuall used in the wild? But still it's sensible to introduce the new 'softer version' as you say. > > Kevin. > > > BR, Jan > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
