On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 04:44:12PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 07/24/2016 03:17:18 PM: > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: Lance Richardson <lrich...@redhat.com>, dev@openvswitch.org > > Date: 07/24/2016 03:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2] ovn-controller: eliminate stall in > > ofctrl state machine > > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 09:35:38AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > While this code is cleaner and more robust, running it against the same > > > end-to-end tests that I applied to Lance's original/V2 patches doesn't > > > result in the same small performance gain at larger port densities > > > and reveals a very slight performance penalty for lower port densities. > > > > > > This wasn't what I was expecting and leaves me wondering what is > > > causing the difference. > > > > Are your performance differences within the normal margin of variation? > > Let me put it this way: > > At the higher port density (50 ports/switch) I was testing, I am no > longer 95% confident of a performance gain, while at the lower port > density (10 ports/switch), I am now 95% confident of a performance > hit. > > Now, I suspect that if I go up to even higher port densities I may > still see an improvement, but I haven't tested that. Further, I > *think* the reason for this change is that Lance's patch processed > more messages in a go and so had a chance of starving out other > parts of the code, while yours most definitely doesn't... > > Thus, I'm not asking for a revert or a redesign, I'm just reporting what > I saw and wondering...
OK, thanks. I interpreted this as reporting a bug but it's more nuanced than that. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
