On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:19 PM Numan Siddique <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:28 AM Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:13 AM Numan Siddique <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:25 PM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Numan for running these tests outside OpenStack! >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:50 AM Numan Siddique <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:31 AM Han Zhou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:42 PM Numan Siddique < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 11:47 AM Han Zhou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:16 AM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Thanks a lot Han for the answer! >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:57 PM Han Zhou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:12 AM Dumitru Ceara < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:40 AM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez >> >> >> > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > Hi Han, all, >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > Lucas, Numan and I have been doing some 'scale' >> testing of OpenStack >> >> >> > >> > > > > using OVN and wanted to present some results and >> issues that we've >> >> >> > >> > > > > found with the Incremental Processing feature in >> ovn-controller. Below >> >> >> > >> > > > > is the scenario that we executed: >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > * 7 baremetal nodes setup: 3 controllers (running >> >> >> > >> > > > > ovn-northd/ovsdb-servers in A/P with pacemaker) + 4 >> compute nodes. OVS >> >> >> > >> > > > > 2.10. >> >> >> > >> > > > > * The test consists on: >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Create openstack network (OVN LS), subnet and >> router >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Attach subnet to the router and set gw to the >> external network >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Create an OpenStack port and apply a Security >> Group (ACLs to allow >> >> >> > >> > > > > UDP, SSH and ICMP). >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Bind the port to one of the 4 compute nodes >> (randomly) by >> >> >> > >> > > > > attaching it to a network namespace. >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Wait for the port to be ACTIVE in Neutron ('up == >> True' in NB) >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Wait until the test can ping the port >> >> >> > >> > > > > * Running browbeat/rally with 16 simultaneous process >> to execute the >> >> >> > >> > > > > test above 150 times. >> >> >> > >> > > > > * When all the 150 'fake VMs' are created, browbeat >> will delete all >> >> >> > >> > > > > the OpenStack/OVN resources. >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > We first tried with OVS/OVN 2.10 and pulled some >> results which showed >> >> >> > >> > > > > 100% success but ovn-controller is quite loaded (as >> expected) in all >> >> >> > >> > > > > the nodes especially during the deletion phase: >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Compute node: https://imgur.com/a/tzxfrIR >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Controller node (ovn-northd and ovsdb-servers): >> https://imgur.com/a/8ffKKYF >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > After conducting the tests above, we replaced >> ovn-controller in all 7 >> >> >> > >> > > > > nodes by the one with the current master branch >> (actually from last >> >> >> > >> > > > > week). We also replaced ovn-northd and ovsdb-servers >> but the >> >> >> > >> > > > > ovs-vswitchd has been left untouched (still on 2.10). >> The expected >> >> >> > >> > > > > results were to get less ovn-controller CPU usage and >> also better >> >> >> > >> > > > > times due to the Incremental Processing feature >> introduced recently. >> >> >> > >> > > > > However, the results don't look very good: >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Compute node: https://imgur.com/a/wuq87F1 >> >> >> > >> > > > > - Controller node (ovn-northd and ovsdb-servers): >> https://imgur.com/a/99kiyDp >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > One thing that we can tell from the ovs-vswitchd CPU >> consumption is >> >> >> > >> > > > > that it's much less in the Incremental Processing (IP) >> case which >> >> >> > >> > > > > apparently doesn't make much sense. This led us to >> think that perhaps >> >> >> > >> > > > > ovn-controller was not installing the necessary flows >> in the switch >> >> >> > >> > > > > and we confirmed this hypothesis by looking into the >> dataplane >> >> >> > >> > > > > results. Out of the 150 VMs, 10% of them were >> unreachable via ping >> >> >> > >> > > > > when using ovn-controller from master. >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > @Han, others, do you have any ideas as of what could >> be happening >> >> >> > >> > > > > here? We'll be able to use this setup for a few more >> days so let me >> >> >> > >> > > > > know if you want us to pull some other data/traces, ... >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > Some other interesting things: >> >> >> > >> > > > > On each of the compute nodes, (with an almost evenly >> distributed >> >> >> > >> > > > > number of logical ports bound to them), the max amount >> of logical >> >> >> > >> > > > > flows in br-int is ~90K (by the end of the test, right >> before deleting >> >> >> > >> > > > > the resources). >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > It looks like with the IP version, ovn-controller >> leaks some memory: >> >> >> > >> > > > > https://imgur.com/a/trQrhWd >> >> >> > >> > > > > While with OVS 2.10, it remains pretty flat during the >> test: >> >> >> > >> > > > > https://imgur.com/a/KCkIT4O >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Hi Daniel, Han, >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > I just sent a small patch for the ovn-controller memory >> leak: >> >> >> > >> > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1113758/ >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > At least on my setup this is what valgrind was pointing >> at. >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Cheers, >> >> >> > >> > > > Dumitru >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > Looking forward to hearing back :) >> >> >> > >> > > > > Daniel >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > PS. Sorry for my previous email, I sent it by mistake >> without the subject >> >> >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > >> > > > > discuss mailing list >> >> >> > >> > > > > [email protected] >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > Thanks Daniel for the testing and reporting, and thanks >> Dumitru for fixing the memory leak. >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > Currently ovn-controller incremental processing only >> handles below SB changes incrementally: >> >> >> > >> > > - logical_flow >> >> >> > >> > > - port_binding (for regular VIF binding NOT on current >> chassis) >> >> >> > >> > > - mc_group >> >> >> > >> > > - address_set >> >> >> > >> > > - port_group >> >> >> > >> > > - mac_binding >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > So, in test scenario you described, since each iteration >> creates network (SB datapath changes) and router ports (port_binding >> changes for non VIF), the incremental processing would not help much, >> because most steps in your test should trigger recompute. It would help if >> you create more Fake VMs in each iteration, e.g. create 10 VMs or more on >> each LS. Secondly, when VIF port-binding happens on current chassis, the >> ovn-controller will still do re-compute, and because you have only 4 >> compute nodes, so 1/4 of the compute node will still recompute even when >> binding a regular VIF port. When you have more compute nodes you would see >> incremental processing more effective. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Got it, it makes sense (although then worst case, it should >> be at >> >> >> > >> > least what we had before and not worse but it can also be >> because >> >> >> > >> > we're mixing version here: 2.10 vs master). >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > However, what really worries me is the 10% VM unreachable. >> I have one confusion here on the test steps. The last step you described >> was: - Wait until the test can ping the port. So if the VM is not pingable >> the test won't continue? >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Sorry I should've explained it better. We wait for 2 minutes >> to the >> >> >> > >> > port to respond to pings, if it's not reachable then we >> continue with >> >> >> > >> > the next port (16 rally processes are running simultaneously >> so the >> >> >> > >> > rest of the process may be doing stuff at the same time). >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > To debug the problem, the first thing is to identify what >> flows are missing for the VMs that is unreachable. Could you do ovs-appctl >> ofproto/trace for the ICMP flow of any VM with ping failure? And then, >> please enable debug log for ovn-controller with ovs-appctl -t >> ovn-controller vlog/set file:dbg. There may be too many logs so please >> enable it for as short time as any VM with ping failure is reproduced. If >> the last step "wait until the test can ping the port" is there then it >> should be able to detect the first occurrence if the VM is not reachable in >> e.g. 30 sec. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > We'll need to hack a bit here but let's see :) >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > In the ovn-scale-test we didn't have data plane test, but >> this problem was not seen in our live environment either, with a far larger >> scale. The major difference in your test v.s. our environment are: >> >> >> > >> > > - We are runing with an older version. So there might be >> some rebase/refactor problem caused this. To eliminate this, I'd suggest to >> try a branch I created for 2.10 ( >> https://github.com/hzhou8/ovs/tree/ip12_rebase_on_2.10), which matches >> the base test you did which is also 2.10. It may also eliminate >> compatibility problem, if there is any, between OVN master branch and OVS >> 2.10 as you mentioned is used in the test. >> >> >> > >> > > - We don't use Security Group (I guess the ~90k OVS flows >> you mentioned were mainly introduced by the Security Group use, if all >> ports were put in same group). The incremental processing is expected to be >> correct for security-groups, and handling it incrementally because of >> address_set and port_group incremental processing. However, since the >> testing only relied on the regression tests, I am not 100% sure if the test >> coverage was sufficient. So could you try disabling Security Group to rule >> out the problem? >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Ok will try to repeat the tests without the SGs. >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > Thanks, >> >> >> > >> > > Han >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Thanks once again! >> >> >> > >> > Daniel >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Any updates? Do you still see the 10% VM unreachable >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Thanks, >> >> >> > >> Han >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Hi Han, >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > As such there is no datapath impact. After increasing the ping >> wait timeout value from 120 seconds to 180 seconds its 100% now. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > But the time taken to program the flows is too huge when >> compared to OVN master without IP patches. >> >> >> > > Here is some data - http://paste.openstack.org/show/753224/ >> . I am still investigating it. I will update my findings in some time. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Please see the times for the action - vm.wait_for_ping >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks Numan for the investigation and update. Glad to hear there >> is no correctness issue, but sorry for the slowness in your test scenario. >> I expect that the operations in your test trigger recomputing and the worst >> case should be similar performance as withour I-P. It is weird that it >> turned out so much slower in your test. There can be some extra overhead >> when it tries to do incremental processing and then fallback to full >> recompute, but it shouldn't cause that big difference. It might be that for >> some reason the main loop iteration is triggered more times unnecessarily. >> I'd suggest to compare the coverage counter "lflow_run" between the tests, >> and also check perf report to see if the hotspot is somewhere else. (Sorry >> that I can't provide full-time help now since I am still on vacation but I >> will try to be useful if things are blocked) >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Numan/Daniel, do you have any new findings on why I-P got worse >> result in your test? The extremely long latency (2 - 3 min) shown in your >> report reminds me a similar problem I reported before: >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2018-April/346321.html >> >> >> >> >> >> The root cause of that problem was still not clear. In that report, >> the extremely long latency (7 min) was observed without I-P and it didn't >> happen with I-P. If it is the same problem, then I suspect it is not >> related to I-P or non I-P, but some problem related to ovsdb monitor >> condition change. To confirm if it is same problem, could you: >> >> >> 1. pause the test when the scale is big enough (e.g. when the test >> is almost completed), and then >> >> >> 2. enable ovn-controller debug log, and then >> >> >> 3. run one more iteration of the test, and see if the time was >> spent on waiting for SB DB update notification. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please ignore my speculation above if you already found the root >> cause and it would be great if you could share it :) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for sharing this Han. >> >> > >> >> > I do not have any new findings. Yesterday I ran ovn-scale-test >> comparing OVN with IP vs without IP (using the master branch). >> >> > The test creates a new logical switch, adds it to a router, few ACLs >> and creates 2 logical ports and pings between them. >> >> > I am using physical deployment which creates actual namespaces >> instead of sandboxes. >> >> > >> >> > The results doesn't show any huge difference between the two. >> >> 2300 vs 2900 seconds total time or 44 vs 56 seconds for the 95%ile? >> >> It is not negligible IMHO. It's a >25% penalty with the IP. Maybe I >> >> missed something from the results? >> >> >> > >> > Initially I ran with ovn-nbctl running commands as one batch (ie >> combining commands with "--"). The results were very similar. Like this one >> > >> > ******* >> > >> > With non IP - ovn-nbctl NO daemon mode >> > >> > >> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> > | Response Times (sec) >> | >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> > | action | min | median | 90%ile | >> 95%ile | max | avg | success | count | >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> > | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.288 | 0.429 | 5.454 | >> 5.538 | 20.531 | 1.523 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.046 | 0.139 | 0.202 | >> 5.084 | 10.259 | 0.441 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.164 | 0.411 | 5.307 | >> 5.491 | 15.636 | 1.128 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn.create_lport | 0.11 | 0.272 | 0.478 | >> 5.284 | 15.496 | 0.835 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.302 | 2.367 | 2.834 | >> 3.24 | 12.409 | 2.527 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.0 | 0.001 | 0.001 | >> 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.04 | 10.24 | 10.397 | >> 10.449 | 10.82 | 6.767 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | total | 2.219 | 13.903 | 23.068 | >> 24.538 | 49.437 | 13.222 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> > >> > >> > With IP - ovn-nbctl NO daemon mode >> > >> > concurrency - 10 >> > >> > >> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> > | Response Times (sec) >> | >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> > | action | min | median | 90%ile | >> 95%ile | max | avg | success | count | >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> > | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.274 | 0.402 | 0.493 | >> 0.51 | 0.584 | 0.408 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.064 | 0.137 | 0.213 | >> 0.244 | 0.33 | 0.146 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.203 | 0.395 | 0.677 | >> 0.766 | 0.912 | 0.427 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn.create_lport | 0.13 | 0.261 | 0.437 | >> 0.497 | 0.604 | 0.283 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.307 | 2.374 | 2.816 | >> 2.904 | 3.401 | 2.325 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.0 | 0.001 | 0.001 | >> 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.028 | 10.237 | 10.422 | >> 10.474 | 11.281 | 6.453 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > | total | 2.251 | 13.631 | 14.822 | >> 15.008 | 15.901 | 10.044 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> > >> > ***************** >> > >> > The results I shared in the previous email were with ACLs added and >> ovn-nbctl - batch mode disabled. >> > >> > I agree with you. Let me do few more runs to be sure that the results >> are consistent. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Numan >> > >> > >> >> > I will test with OVN 2.9 vs 2.11 master along with what you have >> suggested above and see if there are any problems related to ovsdb monitor >> condition change. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks >> >> > Numan >> >> > >> >> > Below are the results >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > With IP master - nbctl daemon node - No batch mode >> >> > concurrency - 10 >> >> > >> >> > >> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> > | Response Times (sec) >> | >> >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> >> > | action | min | median | 90%ile | >> 95%ile | max | avg | success | count | >> >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> >> > | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.269 | 0.661 | 10.426 | >> 15.422 | 37.259 | 3.721 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.313 | 0.45 | 12.107 | >> 15.373 | 30.405 | 4.185 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.163 | 0.255 | 10.121 | >> 10.64 | 20.475 | 2.655 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn.create_lport | 0.351 | 0.514 | 12.255 | >> 15.511 | 34.74 | 4.621 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.362 | 2.447 | 7.34 | >> 7.651 | 17.651 | 3.146 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.086 | 2.734 | 5.272 | >> 7.827 | 22.717 | 2.957 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.038 | 10.196 | 20.285 | >> 20.39 | 40.74 | 7.52 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | total | 2.862 | 27.267 | 49.956 | >> 56.39 | 90.884 | 28.808 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> >> > Load duration: 2950.4133141 >> >> > Full duration: 2951.58845997 seconds >> >> > >> >> > *********** >> >> > With non IP - nbctl daemin node -ACLs - No batch mode >> >> > >> >> > concurrency - 10 >> >> > >> >> > >> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> > | Response Times (sec) >> | >> >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> >> > | action | min | median | 90%ile | >> 95%ile | max | avg | success | count | >> >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> >> > | ovn_network.create_routers | 0.267 | 0.421 | 10.395 | >> 10.735 | 25.501 | 3.09 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn.create_lswitch | 0.314 | 0.408 | 10.331 | >> 10.483 | 25.357 | 3.049 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.connect_network_to_router | 0.153 | 0.249 | 6.552 | >> 10.268 | 20.545 | 2.236 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn.create_lport | 0.344 | 0.49 | 10.566 | >> 15.428 | 25.542 | 3.906 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.bind_port | 1.372 | 2.409 | 7.437 | >> 7.665 | 17.518 | 3.192 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.wait_port_up | 0.086 | 1.323 | 5.157 | >> 7.769 | 20.166 | 2.291 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.034 | 2.077 | 10.347 | >> 10.427 | 20.307 | 5.123 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > | total | 3.109 | 21.26 | 39.245 | >> 44.495 | 70.197 | 22.889 | 100.0% | 1000 | >> >> > >> +---------------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+ >> >> > Load duration: 2328.11378407 >> >> > Full duration: 2334.43504095 seconds >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hi Numan/Daniel, >> >> I spent some time investigating this problem you reported. Thanks Numan >> for the offline help sharing the details. >> >> Although I still didn't reproduce the slowness in my current single node >> testing env with almost same steps and ACLs shared by Numan, I think I may >> have figured out a highy probable cause of what you have seen. >> >> Here is my theory: there is a difference between the I-P and non-I-P in >> the main loop. The non-I-P version checks ofctrl_can_put() before doing any >> flow computation (which is introduced to solve a serious performance >> problem when there are many OVS flows on a single node, see [1]). When >> worked out the I-P version, I found this may not be the best approach, >> since there can be new incremental changes coming and we want to process >> them in current iteration incrementally, so that we don't need to fallback >> to recompute in next iteration. So this logic is changed so that we always >> prioritize computing new changes and keeping the desired flow table up to >> date, while the in-flight messages to ovs-vswitchd may still pending for an >> older version of desired state. In the end the final desired state will be >> synced again to ovs-vswitchd. If there are new changes that triggers >> recompute again, the recompute (which is always slow) will slow down the >> ofctrl_run() which keeps sending old pending messages to ovs-vswitchd by >> the same main thread. (But it won't cause the original performance problem >> any more because incremental processing engine will not recompute when >> there is no input change). >> >> However, when the test scenario triggers recompute frequently, each >> single change may take longer to be enforced in OVS, because of this new >> approach. The later recompute iterations would slow down the previous >> computed OVS flow installation. In your test you used parallel 10, which >> means at any point there might be new changes from one client such as >> creating new router that triggers recomputing, which can block the OVS flow >> installation triggered earlier for another client. So overall you will see >> much bigger latency for each individual test iteration. >> >> This can also explain why I didn't reproduce the problem in my >> single-client single-node environment, since each iteration is serialized. >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/commit/74c760c8fe99d554b94423d49d13d5ca3dea0d9e >> >> To prove this theory, could you help with two tests reusing your >> environment? Thanks a lot! >> >> > Thanks Han. I will try these and come back to you with the results. > > Numan > > >> 1. Instead of parallelism of 10, try 1, to make sure the test is >> serialized. I'd expect the result should be similar w/ v.s. w/o I-P. >> >> 2. Try below patch on the I-P version you are testing, to see if the >> problem is gone. >> ----8><--------------------------------------------><8--------------- >> diff --git a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c >> index 043abd6..0fcaa72 100644 >> --- a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c >> +++ b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.c >> @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@ add_meter(struct ovn_extend_table_info *m_desired, >> * in the correct state and not backlogged with existing flow_mods. (Our >> * criteria for being backlogged appear very conservative, but the socket >> * between ovn-controller and OVS provides some buffering.) */ >> -static bool >> +bool >> ofctrl_can_put(void) >> { >> if (state != S_UPDATE_FLOWS >> diff --git a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h >> index ed8918a..2b21c11 100644 >> --- a/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h >> +++ b/ovn/controller/ofctrl.h >> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ void ofctrl_put(struct ovn_desired_flow_table *, >> const struct sbrec_meter_table *, >> int64_t nb_cfg, >> bool flow_changed); >> +bool ofctrl_can_put(void); >> void ofctrl_wait(void); >> void ofctrl_destroy(void); >> int64_t ofctrl_get_cur_cfg(void); >> diff --git a/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c >> b/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c >> index c4883aa..c85c6fa 100644 >> --- a/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c >> +++ b/ovn/controller/ovn-controller.c >> @@ -1954,7 +1954,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) >> >> stopwatch_start(CONTROLLER_LOOP_STOPWATCH_NAME, >> time_msec()); >> - if (ovnsb_idl_txn) { >> + if (ovnsb_idl_txn && ofctrl_can_put()) { >> engine_run(&en_flow_output, ++engine_run_id); >> } >> stopwatch_stop(CONTROLLER_LOOP_STOPWATCH_NAME, >> > Hi Han, So far I could do just one run after applying your above suggested patch with the I-P version and results look promising. It seems to me the problem is gone. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Response Times (sec) | +----------------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+---------+---------+------------+-------+ | action | min | median | 90%ile | 95%ile | max | avg | success | count | +----------------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+---------+---------+------------+-------+ | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.037 | 10.236 | 10.392 | 10.462 | 20.455 | 7.15 | 100.0% | 1000 | +----------------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+---------+---------+------------+-------+ | ovn_network.ping_ports | 0.036 | 10.255 | 10.448 | 11.323 | 20.791 | 7.83 | 100.0% | 1000 | +----------------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+---------+---------+------------+-------+ The first row represents Non IP and the 2nd row represents IP + your suggested patch. The values are comparable and lot better compared to without your patch. On monday I will do more runs to be sure that the data is consistent and get back to you. If the results are consistent, I would try to run the tests which Daniel and Lucas ran on an openstack deployment. Thanks Numan
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
