[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3] dpif-netdev: Expand the meter capacity.
i.maximets at ovn.org
Wed Jun 23 11:07:11 UTC 2021
On 5/12/21 11:17 AM, xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com>
> For now, ovs-vswitchd use the array of the dp_meter struct
> to store meter's data, and at most, there are only 65536
> (defined by MAX_METERS) meters that can be used. But in some
> case, for example, in the edge gateway, we should use 200,000+,
> at least, meters for IP address bandwidth limitation.
> Every one IP address will use two meters for its rx and tx
> path. In other way, ovs-vswitchd should support meter-offload
> (rte_mtr_xxx api introduced by dpdk.), but there are more than
> 65536 meters in the hardware, such as Mellanox ConnectX-6.
> This patch use cmap to manage the meter, instead of the array.
> * Insertion performance, ovs-ofctl add-meter 1000+ meters,
> the cmap takes abount 4000ms, as same as previous implementation.
> * Lookup performance in datapath, we add 1000+ meters which rate limit
> are 10Gbps (the NIC cards are 10Gbps, so netdev-datapath will not
> drop the packets.), and a flow which only forward packets from p0
> to p1, with meter action. On other machine, pktgen-dpdk will
> generate 64B packets to p0.
> The forwarding performance always is 1324 Kpps on my server
> which CPU is Intel E5-2650, 2.00GHz.
> $ in_port=p0,ip,ip_dst=1.1.1.x action=meter:n,output:p1
> $ in_port=p1,ip,ip_src=1.1.1.x action=meter:m,output:p0
> $ in_port=p0 action=meter:100,output:p1
> Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com>
> * update the commit message
> * remove dp_netdev_meter struct
> * remove create_dp_netdev function
> * don't use the hash_basis
> * use the meter_id as a hash instead of hash_xxx function. see *dp_meter_hash for details
> * fix coding style
> * v2: http://firstname.lastname@example.org/
> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 97 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
Hi. Thanks for v3!
This version looks mostly OK to me with only one question:
In current code meter locks are adaptive mutexes, but this patch
makes them usual. Is there particular reason to do that?
Have you tested performance in case where several threads uses
the same meter? If not, I'd prefer to keep it adaptive, as it's
the current behavior and adaptive mutexes sometimes provides
better performance since they act like spinlocks for a short
period of time (in some cases they're worse than simple mutexes,
but extensive performance testing is needed for each particular
case to confirm).
I can change the type of meter mutexes before applying the patch.
Let me know, what do you think.
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
More information about the dev