[ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ovn: Test for full logical flow processing in ovn-controller

[Han Zhou]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Jakub Sitnicki <jkbs at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:21:28 -0700
> Han Zhou <zhouhan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Jakub Sitnicki <jkbs at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 31 May 2018 10:14:50 -0700
> > > Han Zhou <zhouhan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +# vec_sub VEC_A VEC_B
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +# Subtracts two vectors:
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +#     VEC_A = [a1, a2, ...]
> > > > > +#     VEC_B = [b1, b2, ...]
> > > > > +#     OUT = [(a1 - b1), (a2 - b2), ...]
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +# VEC_A and VEC_B must be lists of values separated by a
character
> > from
> > > > $IFS.
> > > > > +vec_sub() {
> > > > > +    local a b i j
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    i=0
> > > > > +    for a in $1; do
> > > > > +        j=0
> > > > > +        for b in $2; do
> > > > > +            if test $i -eq $j; then
> > > > > +                expr $a - $b
> > > > > +                break
> > > > > +            fi
> > > > > +            j=`expr $j + 1`
> > > > > +        done
> > > > > +        i=`expr $i + 1`
> > > > > +    done
> > > >
> > > > The loop is O(n^2) while ideally it can be O(n). I think it is not
a big
> > > > deal since it is testing, and I don't have better idea how to
achieve
> > O(n)
> > > > while keeping the current convenient input parameters. Just to
confirm
> > it
> > > > is not supposed to be used in scalability testing environment to
> > calculate
> > > > counters for thousands of sandboxes, right?
> > >
> > > Oh, no, I would not be brave enough to go testing 1000's of sandboxes
> > > with shell scripts. For that scale I would rewrite the whole test to
> > > Python probably.
> > >
> > > This is the best I could come up with, w/o going into Bash arrays. It
> > > is intended only for the scale we test at in the automated test suite.
> > > So just a few sandboxes as most.
> > >
> > Agree. It is totally fine for this test suite.
> >
> > How about my other comment:
> > > > > +    # Bind port $lp
> > > > +    OVN_CONTROLLER_EXPECT_HIT(
> >
> > > > For port binding, we should expect recompute on the HV where the
port
> > is bound to, and expect no recompute on all other HVs.
> >
> > > > +        [hv1 hv2], [lflow_run],
> > > > +        [as $hv ovs-vsctl add-port br-int $vif -- set Interface
$vif
> > external-ids:iface-id=$lp]
> > > > +    )
> >
> > For example, after binding on hv1, we should expect lflow_run counter
> > increased on hv1, but not on hv2. We want to ensure incremental
> > port-binding processing is taking effect on hv2.
OVN_CONTROLLER_EXPECT_HIT
> > checks the total count, but doesn't tell the differences for each HV. I
> > think we can split this test into two.
>
> Apologies, I've missed your other comment.
>
> Yes, I saw what you're describing in with a PoC script I did before
> rewriting it in Autotest:
>
>
https://github.com/jsitnicki/tools/blob/master/net/ovn/example_count_lflow_run.txt
>
> I was considering making the EXPECT_HIT check less coarse but decided to
> keep it simple at first. It's certainly something I would like to
> improve.
>
> > And I just thought about another problem in this port-binding test. It
is
> > better to combine with the wait-until ... up="true" test, and do a
> > ovn-nbctl --wait=hv sync, so that we are sure the ovn-controller already
> > processed the port-binding. Otherwise, the test could easily fail due to
> > timing issue.
>
> Good point, I did not think of that. Having the EXPECT_{HIT,NO_HIT}
> accept a batch of commands could be doable with some m4_foreach magic.
> I will need to give it a try.

Shouldn't ";" separated commands as the "cmd" parameter just work?

>
> > BTW, can I fold your patch into my incremental patch series so that I
can
> > use it and add more test cases on top of it? I am not sure about the
> > practice in this community when two or more people are working on
patches
> > that depends on each other. Can I just keep everything in your patch
> > (including Signed-off-by) and also add a comment that the patch is from
> > you, so that when the committer (most likely blp) will commit with the
> > correct Author in github?
>
> Yes, sure. Feel free to pull these patches into your series. I'm
> glad they will be of use.
>
> Meanwhile, I will try to add the two enhancements we're discussing
> here.
>

That's great, thanks!
I just sent out v3 of my series with address set and port group incremental
processing:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/list/?series=48060
I will wait for your enhancements and fold your patch in v4.

Thanks,
Han