[ovs-discuss] OpenStack profiling with networking-ovn - port creation is slow

Daniel Alvarez dalvarez at redhat.com
Tue Feb 20 22:01:47 UTC 2018




> On 20 Feb 2018, at 19:50, Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasagomes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Han Zhou <zhouhan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:33:11AM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote:
>>>> @Han, I can try rebase the patch if you want but that was
>>>> basically renaming the Address_Set table and from Ben's
>>>> comment, it may be better to keep the name. Not sure,
>>>> however, how we can proceed to address Lucas' points in
>>>> this thread.
>>> 
>>> I wouldn't rename the table.  It sounds like the priority should be to
>>> add support for sets of port names.  I thought that there was already a
>>> patch for that to be rebased, but maybe I misunderstood.
>> 
>> I feel it is better to add a new table for port group explicitly, and the
>> column type can be a set of weak reference to Logical_Switch_Port.
>> The benefits are:
>> - Better data integrity: deleting a lport automatically deletes from the
>> port group
>> - No confusion about the type of records in a single table
>> - Existing Address_Set mechanism will continue to be supported without any
>> change
>> - Furthermore, the race condition issue brought up by Lucas can be solved by
>> supporting port-group in IP address match condition in ovn-controller, so
>> that all addresses in the lports are used just like how AddressSet is used
>> today. And there is no need for Neutron networking-ovn to use AddressSet any
>> more. Since addresses are deduced from lports, the ordering of
>> deleting/adding doesn't matter any more.
>> 
>> How does this sound?

+1 from me too! Even though I understand the reasons brought up by Ben I think this might be the right plan forward! We can try to work on it together Han.
Thanks a lot guys.
Daniel 
>> 
> 
> +1 from me, I quite like it! It would solve both problems raised in
> this thread and won't break any existing code.
> 
> (Also, thanks for all the previous suggestions @Ben, @Han and @Daniel.
> This thread has been really helpful!)
> 
> Cheers,
> Lucas
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss


More information about the discuss mailing list