[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 ovn 4/4] controller: binding: add memory accounting for local_lports and related_lports

Dumitru Ceara dceara at redhat.com
Thu Oct 14 10:49:56 UTC 2021


On 10/14/21 12:45 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> On 9/25/21 12:19 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>>> Introduce memory accounting for:
>>> - binding local_lports map
>>> - binding related_lports map
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi at redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  controller/binding.c        | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  controller/binding.h        |  5 ++++
>>>  controller/ovn-controller.c |  5 ++--
>>>  3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/controller/binding.c b/controller/binding.c
>>> index 661b4bb24..ec1e8bec7 100644
>>> --- a/controller/binding.c
>>> +++ b/controller/binding.c
>>> @@ -39,6 +39,31 @@
>>>  
>>>  VLOG_DEFINE_THIS_MODULE(binding);
>>>  
>>> +static uint64_t local_lports_usage;
>>> +static uint64_t related_lports_usage;
>>> +
>>> +static void
>>> +sset_mem_update(uint64_t *usage, struct sset *set,
>>> +                const char *name, bool erase)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct sset_node *node = sset_find(set, name);
>>> +
>>> +    if (!node && !erase) { /* add new element */
>>> +        *usage += (sizeof *node + strlen(name));
>>> +    } else if (node && erase) { /* remove an element */
>>> +        *usage -= (sizeof *node + strlen(name));
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void
>>> +sset_mem_clear(struct sset *set, uint64_t *usage)
>>> +{
>>> +    const char *name;
>>> +    SSET_FOR_EACH (name, set) {
>>> +        sset_mem_update(usage, set, name, true);
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> I'm not too sure about this.  These functions are very generic.  I think
>> this should be part of the sset code itself.  Maybe a sset should just
>> automatically (or if configured) track all the memory it owns?  What do
>> you think?
> 
> +Ilya
> 
> I guess it would be a nice to have. sset are widely used but I do not think
> this patch will introduce a huge overhead.
> 
> Regarding the specific patch we can remove it from the series in order to
> unlock it or we can have a local routines for the moment and then remove them
> when we have sset support. What do you think?

I don't really expect the local_lports and related_lports ssets to grow
too big so I think we can probably wait with this patch until we have a
more generic solution, maybe directly in sset.

Regards,
Dumitru



More information about the dev mailing list