[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] dpif-netdev: Change rxq_scheduling to use rxq processing cycles.
Greg Rose
gvrose8192 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 4 22:13:15 UTC 2017
On 08/04/2017 02:56 PM, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 08/04/2017 10:31 PM, Greg Rose wrote:
> > On 08/01/2017 08:58 AM, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> >> Previously rxqs were assigned to pmds by round robin in
> >> port/queue order.
> >>
> >> Now that we have the processing cycles used for existing rxqs,
> >> use that information to try and produced a better balanced
> >> distribution of rxqs across pmds. i.e. given multiple pmds, the
> >> rxqs which have consumed the largest amount of processing cycles
> >> will be placed on different pmds.
> >>
> >> The rxqs are sorted by their processing cycles and assigned (in
> >> sorted order) round robin across pmds.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Thanks for your work on openvswitch.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this patch fails when applied to the master branch. I
> > didn't see a 'From:' sha id so I don't know which commit to base this
> > series upon.
> >
> > Here's the error:
> >
> > Applying: dpif-netdev: Count the rxq processing cycles for an rxq.
> > Applying patch #796309 using 'git am'
> > Description: [ovs-dev,v3,4/6] dpif-netdev: Change rxq_scheduling to use
> > rxq processing cycles.
> > Applying: dpif-netdev: Change rxq_scheduling to use rxq processing cycles.
> > error: patch failed: lib/dpif-netdev.c:3306
> > error: lib/dpif-netdev.c: patch does not apply
> > Patch failed at 0001 dpif-netdev: Change rxq_scheduling to use rxq
> > processing cycles.
> >
> > I guess we need the series to be rebased.
> >
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for your mail. A commit merged [1] in the last couple of days
> that touches some of the same code, so you're right I need to do a
> rebase and re-run a few tests. fyi, I submitted earlier in the week
> based on commit 8014f465e272 if you were interested in seeing it before
> rebase. Even though both changes are touching the same code, the
> functionality is independent and they fit together nicely.
>
> Kevin.
Great, I'll give it a whirl.
Thanks for the prompt response!
- Greg
>
> [1]
> commit c37813fdb030b4270d05ad61943754f67021a50d
> Author: Billy O'Mahony <billy.o.mahony at intel.com>
> Date: Tue Aug 1 14:38:43 2017 -0700
>
> dpif-netdev: Assign ports to pmds on non-local numa node.
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Greg
> >
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst | 7 +++++
> >> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 73
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >> 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst b/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst
> >> index af01d3e..a969285 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst
> >> +++ b/Documentation/howto/dpdk.rst
> >> @@ -119,4 +119,11 @@ After that PMD threads on cores where RX queues
> >> was pinned will become
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> +If pmd-rxq-affinity is not set for rxqs, they will be assigned to
> >> pmds (cores)
> >> +automatically. The processing cycles that have been required for each
> >> rxq
> >> +will be used where known to assign rxqs with the highest consumption of
> >> +processing cycles to different pmds.
> >> +
> >> +Rxq to pmds assignment takes place whenever there are configuration
> >> changes.
> >> +
> >> QoS
> >> ---
> >> diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> >> index 25a521a..a05e586 100644
> >> --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> >> +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> >> @@ -3295,8 +3295,29 @@ rr_numa_list_destroy(struct rr_numa_list *rr)
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/* Sort Rx Queues by the processing cycles they are consuming. */
> >> +static int
> >> +rxq_cycle_sort(const void *a, const void *b)
> >> +{
> >> + struct dp_netdev_rxq * qa;
> >> + struct dp_netdev_rxq * qb;
> >> +
> >> + qa = *(struct dp_netdev_rxq **) a;
> >> + qb = *(struct dp_netdev_rxq **) b;
> >> +
> >> + if (dp_netdev_rxq_get_cycles(qa, RXQ_CYCLES_PROC_LAST) >=
> >> + dp_netdev_rxq_get_cycles(qb, RXQ_CYCLES_PROC_LAST)) {
> >> + return -1;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 1;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /* Assign pmds to queues. If 'pinned' is true, assign pmds to pinned
> >> * queues and marks the pmds as isolated. Otherwise, assign non
> >> isolated
> >> * pmds to unpinned queues.
> >> *
> >> + * If 'pinned' is false queues will be sorted by processing cycles
> >> they are
> >> + * consuming and then assigned to pmds in round robin order.
> >> + *
> >> * The function doesn't touch the pmd threads, it just stores the
> >> assignment
> >> * in the 'pmd' member of each rxq. */
> >> @@ -3306,18 +3327,14 @@ rxq_scheduling(struct dp_netdev *dp, bool
> >> pinned) OVS_REQUIRES(dp->port_mutex)
> >> struct dp_netdev_port *port;
> >> struct rr_numa_list rr;
> >> -
> >> - rr_numa_list_populate(dp, &rr);
> >> + struct dp_netdev_rxq ** rxqs = NULL;
> >> + int i, n_rxqs = 0;
> >> + struct rr_numa *numa = NULL;
> >> + int numa_id;
> >>
> >> HMAP_FOR_EACH (port, node, &dp->ports) {
> >> - struct rr_numa *numa;
> >> - int numa_id;
> >> -
> >> if (!netdev_is_pmd(port->netdev)) {
> >> continue;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - numa_id = netdev_get_numa_id(port->netdev);
> >> - numa = rr_numa_list_lookup(&rr, numa_id);
> >> -
> >> for (int qid = 0; qid < port->n_rxq; qid++) {
> >> struct dp_netdev_rxq *q = &port->rxqs[qid];
> >> @@ -3337,17 +3354,45 @@ rxq_scheduling(struct dp_netdev *dp, bool
> >> pinned) OVS_REQUIRES(dp->port_mutex)
> >> }
> >> } else if (!pinned && q->core_id == OVS_CORE_UNSPEC) {
> >> - if (!numa) {
> >> - VLOG_WARN("There's no available (non isolated)
> >> pmd thread "
> >> - "on numa node %d. Queue %d on port
> >> \'%s\' will "
> >> - "not be polled.",
> >> - numa_id, qid,
> >> netdev_get_name(port->netdev));
> >> + if (n_rxqs == 0) {
> >> + rxqs = xmalloc(sizeof *rxqs);
> >> } else {
> >> - q->pmd = rr_numa_get_pmd(numa);
> >> + rxqs = xrealloc(rxqs, sizeof *rxqs * (n_rxqs + 1));
> >> }
> >> + /* Store the queue. */
> >> + rxqs[n_rxqs++] = q;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> + if (n_rxqs > 1) {
> >> + /* Sort the queues in order of the processing cycles
> >> + * they consumed during their last pmd interval. */
> >> + qsort(rxqs, n_rxqs, sizeof *rxqs, rxq_cycle_sort);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + rr_numa_list_populate(dp, &rr);
> >> + /* Assign the sorted queues to pmds in round robin. */
> >> + for (i = 0; i < n_rxqs; i++) {
> >> + numa_id = netdev_get_numa_id(rxqs[i]->port->netdev);
> >> + numa = rr_numa_list_lookup(&rr, numa_id);
> >> + if (!numa) {
> >> + VLOG_WARN("There's no available (non isolated) pmd thread "
> >> + "on numa node %d. Queue %d on port \'%s\' will "
> >> + "not be polled.",
> >> + numa_id, netdev_rxq_get_queue_id(rxqs[i]->rx),
> >> + netdev_get_name(rxqs[i]->port->netdev));
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> + rxqs[i]->pmd = rr_numa_get_pmd(numa);
> >> + VLOG_INFO("Core %d on numa node %d assigned port \'%s\' "
> >> + "rx queue %d (measured processing cycles %"PRIu64").",
> >> + rxqs[i]->pmd->core_id, numa_id,
> >> + netdev_rxq_get_name(rxqs[i]->rx),
> >> + netdev_rxq_get_queue_id(rxqs[i]->rx),
> >> + dp_netdev_rxq_get_cycles(rxqs[i],
> >> RXQ_CYCLES_PROC_LAST));
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> rr_numa_list_destroy(&rr);
> >> + free(rxqs);
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >
>
More information about the dev
mailing list