[ovs-dev] [RFC 0/2] dpdk: minor refactor of the initialization step
ktraynor at redhat.com
Wed Apr 11 15:03:27 UTC 2018
On 04/11/2018 02:21 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> "Mooney, Sean K" <sean.k.mooney at intel.com> writes:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Aaron Conole [mailto:aconole at redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:32 PM
>>> To: Mooney, Sean K <sean.k.mooney at intel.com>
>>> Cc: dev at openvswitch.org; Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes at intel.com>; Kevin
>>> Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>; Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com>;
>>> Loftus, Ciara <ciara.loftus at intel.com>; Terry Wilson
>>> <twilson at redhat.com>; Assaf Muller <assaf at redhat.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] dpdk: minor refactor of the initialization step
>>> "Mooney, Sean K" <sean.k.mooney at intel.com> writes:
>>>> So just from a deployment tools point of view I would like to point
>>>> out that This change could break existing workflow that deploy ovs in
>>> a docker container.
>>>> Kolla ansible assumes that if the docker ovs_vswitchd container is
>>>> still running that the is infact running in dpdk mode when we set
>>> Is there a way to test this out and see the behavior?
>> [Mooney, Sean K] well you could use kolla to deploy ovs-dpdk :)
>> Am when I wrote the code I relied on the existing behavior.
>> when kolla ansible is deploying openstack we first deploy the ovsdb.
>> Then we start the ovs-vswitchd container
>> finally we configure the bridges and physical interfaces.
>> the "- name: Ensuring ovsdpdk bridges are properly setup named" task
>> does not use --no-wait when creating bridges and adding interfaces so
>> will fail if the vswitchd is not running. This will result in ansible
>> stopping to run any futher task on that node and reporting the error
>> to the user. If for some reason the ensure bridge task passed the next
>> task that check an ip is assigned to the ovs bride would fail.
> Okay - thanks for the pointers, I'll check it out.
>>> It does seem strange that for a possible configuration error we abort()
>> [Mooney, Sean K] why I would expect this to be standard behavior for any deamon.
>> e.g. the damon would validate it config is correct and exit if invalid.
>> If we don't abort the vswitch is in an undefined state. Is is still
>> using hugepages
>> For example if the eal init fails after they are allocated.
> I see. I think as of 18.11 (which won't come for 6 months), it will
> always 'fail' in a known state. But I'll confirm.
> One of the reasons I want this field is because there will be ways of
> 'uninitializing'. I think it's nice to have the ability for the user to
> dynamically enable *and* disable dpdk. Also, just from a 'selfish'
> view, I recently was fixing a bug where dpdk initialization would fail
> early with a particular hardware, and it wasn't nice to watch the
> respawns (racy gdb attach, and coredumps all over the drive).
>>> running the vswitchd (and with --monitor set, it will continue to
>>> abort() over and over - so I guess you're also not using the monitor
>>> thread?). In the case that an abort does happen, does the Kolla script
>>> distinguish between issues where dpdk setup failed vs. some other
>>> software issue?
>>>> Can I request that if you make this change you add something along
>>>> lines of dpdk-init-is-fatal=true/false so that we can explicitly say
>>> which behavior we want.
>>>> I would not be surprised if people have built monitoring around "is
>>>> the ovs-vswitchd running"
>>> I think they have, but I don't know that they use it to infer such low-
>>> level details (meaning a crash implies that dpdk configuration is
>> [Mooney, Sean K] they don't use is to infer that dpdk configuring is wronge
>> But rather that some configuration was wrong. Dpdk-init is currently considered
>> Fatal if it fails so it was treated the same as any other error that would have
>> caused the vsiwtchd process to exit. I belive in the opnfv community they used
>> the liveleyness of the vswitchd process and in the future dpdk keepalive
>> functionality to set the datapalne status filed in neutron for the host.
>> this allows openstack to be aware of dataplane outages.
> One thing I'll think about more is the dpdk-init. Maybe, since it is
> stored as a string in the database, we can add a few other values there.
> For instance,
> It's like 'true' - only it will continue if there's a failure. Maybe
> that works? Just spit-balling. Thanks for providing insight into the
> way these behaviors are used.
It seems like a good idea to me. Preserves the existing behavior and
gives the opportunity for using in the other model too.
>>>> To infer at least at a highlevel that "everything is fine" where as
>>>> the log message/db field proposed Here will invalidate that.
>>> I've added Assaf Mueller from our Open Stack team as well - maybe he
>>> has some additional details on those mechanisms outside of Kolla (maybe
>>> it exists in some kind of director / other software too, as you point
>>>> it would be ease to check that field but its work that needs to be
>>>> done in multiple places.
>>> I think such a knob wouldn't be useful. I believe it would either have
>>> to be defaulted to 'dpdk-init-is-fatal=true' to abort on failure (which
>>> most users would want to change making it an undesirable default)
>> [Mooney, Sean K] I would argue against that I would never deploy with
>> dpdk-init-is-fatal=false. If your datapane does not start what is the point
>> of running ovs at all? It will not be able to forward packets.
>> , or
>>> the Kolla ansible scripts (and other detection mechanisms for dpdk
>>> failure - if they exist) would need to change. Maybe there's another
>>> approach, though?
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Aaron Conole [mailto:aconole at redhat.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:23 PM
>>>>> To: dev at openvswitch.org
>>>>> Cc: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes at intel.com>; Kevin Traynor
>>>>> <ktraynor at redhat.com>; Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com>;
>>>>> Loftus, Ciara <ciara.loftus at intel.com>; Mooney, Sean K
>>>>> <sean.k.mooney at intel.com>; Terry Wilson <twilson at redhat.com>
>>>>> Subject: [RFC 0/2] dpdk: minor refactor of the initialization step
>>>>> Sometimes, DPDK initialization can fail, but ovs-vswitchd will abort
>>>>> in that case. When that occurs, ovs-vswitchd will be restarted by
>>>>> the monitor and immediately abort. This is rather unfriendly to
>>>>> users, who would prefer to possibly correct the issue or at least,
>>>>> not have lots of processes continually spawning.
>>>>> This series accepts that rte_eal_init() can and does fail for real.
>>>>> It reflects the initialization status in the database, as well as
>>>>> adding the DPDK version (where appropriate).
>>>>> Submitted as RFC to spawn discussion around the type to reflect for
>>>>> the initialized information. Presented here as a boolean - however,
>>>>> it might be more interesting to be a 'string' and have more
>>>>> details (ex: 'failed - ovs_strerror(rte_errno)' or 'uninitialized'
>>>>> Aaron Conole (2):
>>>>> dpdk: allow init to fail
>>>>> dpdk: reflect status and version in the database
>>>>> lib/dpdk-stub.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>> lib/dpdk.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>> lib/dpdk.h | 3 ++-
>>>>> vswitchd/bridge.c | 5 +++++
>>>>> vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema | 11 ++++++++---
>>>>> vswitchd/vswitch.xml | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>> 6 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> dev mailing list
>> dev at openvswitch.org
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
More information about the dev