[ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/8] dpif-netdev: Refactor cycle count and rebased patches

Jan Scheurich jan.scheurich at ericsson.com
Tue Jan 9 13:58:07 UTC 2018


> >>> My suggestion would be to start with the least controversial refactoring first so that we do not introduce complex things in one patch
> >> that we then throw out in the next one again. By that let's try to make the actual feature patches as small and independent as possible.
> >>>
> >>> Here’s my suggestions:
> >>> 1. dpif-netdev: Refactor PMD performance into dpif-netdev-perf
> >>> 2. dpif-netdev: Refactor cycle counting (nestable cycle timer)
> >>> 3a. Time-based tx batching
> >>> 	dpif-netdev: Use microsecond granularity.
> >>> 	dpif-netdev: Count cycles on per-rxq basis. (using the nestable cycle timers)
> >>> 	dpif-netdev: Time based output batching.
> >>> 	docs: Describe output packet batching in DPDK guide.
> >>> 	NEWS: Mark output packet batching support.
> >>> 3b. dpif-netdev: Add percentage of pmd/core used by each rxq.
> >>> 3c. Detailed PMD Performance metrics
> >>> 	dpif-netdev: Detailed performance stats for PMDs
> >>> 	dpif-netdev: Detection and logging of suspicious PMD iterations
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Basically, this looks good to me. But I still think that we should work on that
> >> step-by-step not tying to make all the work at once. This will save time of
> >> rebasing on intermediate versions of patches.
> >
> > Fine with me as long as that doesn't stop review and testing of the not yet rebased
> > patches 3a-c. We need those tests and reviews to find and address any deficiencies
> > inherent in the feature (independent from rebasing).
> >
> 
> I'm not sure if there is some reason you have tied those patches (3)
> together. I thought the idea now was to keep things separate?

The idea is to have them as decoupled as possible once the first two refactoring patches are in place. Ideally one could apply them in any order. At least with much less effort than currently and lots of reverting changes. I didn't want to imply any specific order here.

> 
> I'm making a few edits on 3b atm. Can possibly take this out of the
> chain. It applies without any of the other patches, but I'm not sure if
> it's functional yet.

It should apply after refactoring patches #1 and #2. Otherwise we will have even more work to do the refactoring later. Do you work on the simplified version I proposed?

> 
> >> I'll try to spend some time from the rest of today to check out "nestable cycle timers".
> >> Would like to see fixed patch from #1 and a proper patch for #2.
> >
> > I will try to send out patches for #1 (v6) and #2 this afternoon.
> >
> >> Step #3a should not be hard.
> >>
> >
> > @Ian, Kevin and Billy: Should we anyway have a short Skype chat?
> >
> 
> I think we have a plan, let's skip and keep on email.

Fine with me. 


More information about the dev mailing list