[ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofproto: Optimise OpenFlow flow expiry
horms at verge.net.au
Tue Jan 22 00:35:01 UTC 2013
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:42:29AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:59:21PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:20:57PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Optimise OpenFlow flow expiry by placing expirable flows on a list.
> > > This optimises scanning of flows for expiry in two ways:
> > >
> > > * Empirically list traversal appears faster than the code it replaces.
> > >
> > > With 1,000,000 flows present an otherwise idle system I observed CPU
> > > utilisation of around 20% with the existing code but around 10% with
> > > this new code.
> > >
> > > * Flows that will never expire are not traversed.
> > >
> > > This addresses a case seen in the field.
> > This version looks better. I still have a few comments, but before
> > that, may I ask a little bit about the situation in which the
> > performance improvement was observed? In this situation, about how
> > many of the 1,000,000 flows were actually expirable, that is, had
> > either a hard timeout or an idle timeout? That is, is the performance
> > improvement due more to the first or the second bullet you list above?
> > If none of the flows were expirable, then I guess it was the second;
> > if all of them were, then I guess it was the first; and otherwise it
> > is something in between.
> > Basically I'm wondering if we should do something to make flow table
> > traversal faster, independent of expiration.
> Hi Ben,
> the primary aim of this patch was to address a performance issue that
> was noticed when inserting 100,000 flows none of which were expirable.
> I have been told this is representative of an expected use-case.
> During my testing I used 1,000,000 flows instead of 100,000 in order to
> make the CPU utilisation more pronounced and easier to observe.
> In the course of my testing I tested 1,000,000 flows none of which were
> expirable and in that case CPU utilisation was dramatically reduced to
> approximately 0. This seems to be a good outcome for the use-case
> originally reported.
> In the course of testing I also tested 1,000,000 flows all of which
> were expirable. This was primarily to see if there were any regressions.
> In the course of this test I noticed that there seemed to be some
> reduction in CPU utilisation. However this was just a side effect and
> not an aim of my work. I should have placed it as the second bullet
> in my commit message and noted that it was a side effect.
I'm wondering if there are any other concerns relating to this patch
that I could address.
More information about the dev