[ovs-dev] OVS DPDK Mempool revert

[Kevin Traynor]

On 02/08/2018 01:56 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote:
> Hi Ilya,
> 
> Yes, that was the consensus yesterday in the OVS-DPDK call: Revert to the legacy shared mempool for the 2.9 branch only prior to OVS 2.9.0 release to avoid all issues with upgrades to 2.9 and compatibility complications when backporting shared mempool to the 2.9 branch post the release.
> 

Let me say quickly, it was the consensus on the call, but no binding
decisions are made there - the mailing list is the only place for that.
I haven't sent the minutes yet as it's only been a few working hours for
me since the meeting. I will send a separate reply about the technical
issue.

Kevin.

> On the master branch we would then start a new attempt at a flexible, backward compatible  and economic mempool solution for the 2.10 track.
> 
> BR, Jan
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maximets at samsung.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 08 February, 2018 13:19
>> To: ovs-dev at openvswitch.org; Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes at intel.com>
>> Cc: Jan Scheurich <jan.scheurich at ericsson.com>; Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>; Flavio Leitner <fbl at redhat.com>; Aaron Conole
>> <aconole at redhat.com>; Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus at intel.com>; Mark Kavanagh <mark.b.kavanagh at intel.com>; Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] OVS DPDK Mempool revert
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As discussed on the OVS-DPDK community call, I've manually reverted the per port mempool changes in OVS-DPDK on a branch on my
>> own git hub. This had to be re-introduced manually due to the number of commits and work that had went on top of the per port
>> implementation.
>>>
>>> For testing people can access it from the link below:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/istokes/ovs/tree/mempool_revert
>>>
>>> If we are to revert this in time for OVS 2.9 there is a need for validation among the community to ensure that it does not break any
>> features. I have validated most existing features with VSperf but I'm more interested in ensuring existing user test cases do not break with
>> this revert.
>>
>> I thought that we wanted to update the documentation for now with new
>> memory requirements, prepare new mempool model for 2.10 and backport it
>> to 2.9 if necessary., As mentioned here:
>>
>> 	https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-January/046101.html
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I see no meeting minutes for the latest OVS-DPDK sync call.
>>
>> In general, I think that temporary reverting of the current model looks not
>> so pretty. Especially if we're going to almost revert this revertion in the
>> future.
>>
>> Does you RFC patch intended for branch-2.9 only? In this case it may be
>> acceptable. We'll continue working on current model for 2.10 to fix all
>> the issues or implement some completely new model. And branch-2.9 will be
>> left with shared mempool model forever. Did I understand correctly?
>>
>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.