On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:35:01AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:42:29AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:59:21PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:20:57PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > Optimise OpenFlow flow expiry by placing expirable flows on a list. > > > > This optimises scanning of flows for expiry in two ways: > > > > > > > > * Empirically list traversal appears faster than the code it replaces. > > > > > > > > With 1,000,000 flows present an otherwise idle system I observed CPU > > > > utilisation of around 20% with the existing code but around 10% with > > > > this new code. > > > > > > > > * Flows that will never expire are not traversed. > > > > > > > > This addresses a case seen in the field. > > > > > > This version looks better. I still have a few comments, but before > > > that, may I ask a little bit about the situation in which the > > > performance improvement was observed? In this situation, about how > > > many of the 1,000,000 flows were actually expirable, that is, had > > > either a hard timeout or an idle timeout? That is, is the performance > > > improvement due more to the first or the second bullet you list above? > > > If none of the flows were expirable, then I guess it was the second; > > > if all of them were, then I guess it was the first; and otherwise it > > > is something in between. > > > > > > Basically I'm wondering if we should do something to make flow table > > > traversal faster, independent of expiration. > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > the primary aim of this patch was to address a performance issue that > > was noticed when inserting 100,000 flows none of which were expirable. > > I have been told this is representative of an expected use-case. > > > > During my testing I used 1,000,000 flows instead of 100,000 in order to > > make the CPU utilisation more pronounced and easier to observe. > > > > In the course of my testing I tested 1,000,000 flows none of which were > > expirable and in that case CPU utilisation was dramatically reduced to > > approximately 0. This seems to be a good outcome for the use-case > > originally reported. > > > > In the course of testing I also tested 1,000,000 flows all of which > > were expirable. This was primarily to see if there were any regressions. > > In the course of this test I noticed that there seemed to be some > > reduction in CPU utilisation. However this was just a side effect and > > not an aim of my work. I should have placed it as the second bullet > > in my commit message and noted that it was a side effect. > > Hi Ben, > > I'm wondering if there are any other concerns relating to this patch > that I could address.
No, I'm just moving slowly. (Also, Monday was a holiday at VMware. My on-list traffic yesterday was just due to an urgent bug that pulled me in anyway.) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
