Yeah, that fixed !! No more high CPU.
Thanks for the fast fix on this.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> Thanks so much. I think I see the real problem now. Could you
> re-enable the call to bond_wait(br), and then make a different change?
> Here it is:
>
> diff --git a/vswitchd/bridge.c b/vswitchd/bridge.c
> index 476073a..4c9b019 100644
> --- a/vswitchd/bridge.c
> +++ b/vswitchd/bridge.c
> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ struct port {
> int updelay, downdelay; /* Delay before iface goes up/down, in ms.
> */
> bool bond_compat_is_stale; /* Need to call port_update_bond_compat()?
> */
> bool bond_fake_iface; /* Fake a bond interface for legacy compat?
> */
> - long bond_next_fake_iface_update; /* Next update to fake bond stats.
> */
> + long long int bond_next_fake_iface_update; /* Time of next update. */
> int bond_rebalance_interval; /* Interval between rebalances, in ms. */
> long long int bond_next_rebalance; /* Next rebalancing time. */
>
> In other words, change the type of bond_next_fake_iface_update from
> "long' to "long long int". I think that this is the correct fix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben.
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 08:31:22PM -0300, Luiz Henrique Ozaki wrote:
> > Perfect !!
> >
> > Commenting out the bond_wait(br) solved this high CPU.
> >
> > If you need more debuging and testing, be my guest.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There's nothing unusual there. Hmm.
> > >
> > > If you're willing to try some experiments, maybe we can learn more.
> > >
> > > First, try commenting out the call to "bond_wait(br)" in bridge_wait()
> > > in vswitchd/bridge.c. Does that have any effect?
> > >
> > > If that has no effect, then try commenting out the call to
> > > poll_timer_wait_until(iface_stats_timer) in the same function and see
> if
> > > it makes a difference.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ben.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 06:37:09PM -0300, Luiz Henrique Ozaki wrote:
> > > > # ovs-appctl bond/show bond0
> > > > updelay: 200 ms
> > > > downdelay: 0 ms
> > > > next rebalance: 8481 ms
> > > > slave eth3: enabled
> > > > active slave
> > > > hash 218: 5 kB load
> > > > 00:23:7d:e8:2a:00
> > > > slave eth2: enabled
> > > > # ovs-appctl bond/show bond1
> > > > updelay: 200 ms
> > > > downdelay: 0 ms
> > > > next rebalance: 9737 ms
> > > > slave eth4: enabled
> > > > active slave
> > > > slave eth5: enabled
> > > > # ovs-appctl bond/show bond2
> > > > updelay: 200 ms
> > > > downdelay: 0 ms
> > > > next rebalance: 8585 ms
> > > > slave eth7: enabled
> > > > active slave
> > > > slave eth6: enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I saw in the openvswitch init script that there's a verification for
> > > > Xenserver 5.5, I changed for 5.6 to load the /proc/net just to check
> if
> > > this
> > > > was the issue but cpu process is still high, with or without
> > > > /proc/net/bonding
> > > >
> > > > Changed for the original init again.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:59:35PM -0300, Luiz Henrique Ozaki
> wrote:
> > > > > > May 16 21:56:39|14629|poll_loop|DBG|0-ms timeout:
> > > 0x805bac1(bridge_wait)
> > > > > > 0x8063da9(main) 0xb7470e9c
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. It's definitely part of the bridge code then. What does
> > > > > "ovs-appctl bond/show <bondname>", with <bondname> replaced by the
> name
> > > > > of the bonded port, print out?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > []'s
> > > > Luiz Henrique Ozaki
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > []'s
> > Luiz Henrique Ozaki
>
--
[]'s
Luiz Henrique Ozaki
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_openvswitch.org
