That one is more worrisome. I believe that's an indication that packets are getting dropped on the way to ovs-vswitchd. If you're using the software kernel datapath, do you see the "lost" count going up in "ovs-dpctl show"? Are you only seeing this when you first kick on the netperf tests? What tests are you running?
Ben's working on some additional performance improvements on the userspace classifier, which should help. I'm working on giving each port its own kernel-userspace queue (currently there's a statically defined 16), which should provide better isolation and less contention when there are many ports. --Justin On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Farrukh Aftab Khan <farrukh.k...@xflowresearch.com> wrote: > I was also getting the following warnings: > > Jan 1 00:31:07 (none) daemon.warn ovs-vswitchd: 00017|dpif|WARN|system@br0: > recv failed (No buffer space available) > > > > I looked up some old posts from OVS discuss > (http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@openvswitch.org/msg03385.html), where > Ben had provided a patch for increasing the buffer space to 1MB to resolve > this issue. It is already 1 MB in OVS-1.7.1. So should I increase it further? > Is this something to be concerned about? Any heads up would be appreciated. > > Regards. > - > Farrukh Aftab Khan > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Farrukh Aftab Khan > <farrukh.k...@xflowresearch.com> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation Justin. > I have lowered their log levels and I don't these warnings anymore. Thanks > for the help. > > Regards. > - > Farrukh Aftab Khan > xFlow Research Inc. > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote: > OVS logs these when the CPU usage spikes. That message stating the poll > interval was over 29 times the weighted mean interval triggered the coverage > counters below it. It shouldn't print that again unless there's another > sudden spike in CPU usage that would delay the time through the poll loop. > This was all put in to help diagnose performance issues from a long time ago. > We've talked about removing them or at least lowering their log level. > They're harmless, though. If you really don't want to see them right now, > you could lower the appropriate log levels. > > --Justin > > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Farrukh Aftab Khan > <farrukh.k...@xflowresearch.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I am using OVS-1.7.1 on embedded Linux (kernel-2.6.32.27). I am generating > > traffic at high data rate using 'netperf' and I get the following warnings: > > > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00029|timeval|WARN|51 ms poll interval (0 ms user, 50 > > ms system) is over 29 times the weighted mean interval 2 ms (2424 samples) > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00030|timeval|WARN|context switches: 0 voluntary, 1 > > involuntary > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00031|coverage|INFO|Event coverage (epoch 2424/entire > > run), hash=eb85f2f9: > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00032|coverage|INFO|ofproto_dpif_xlate 1 / > > 1259 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00033|coverage|INFO|hmap_expand 22 / > > 22399 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00034|coverage|INFO|netdev_get_stats 12 / > > 2616 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00035|coverage|INFO|poll_fd_wait 41 / > > 98932 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00036|coverage|INFO|util_xalloc 1157 / > > 899297 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00037|coverage|INFO|netlink_received 17 / > > 8725 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00038|coverage|INFO|netlink_sent 17 / > > 8529 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00039|coverage|INFO|bridge_reconfigure 0 / > > 13 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00040|coverage|INFO|ofproto_flush 0 / > > 4 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00041|coverage|INFO|ofproto_update_port 0 / > > 32 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00042|coverage|INFO|dpif_port_add 0 / > > 8 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00043|coverage|INFO|dpif_flow_flush 0 / > > 8 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00044|coverage|INFO|dpif_purge 0 / > > 4 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00045|coverage|INFO|flow_extract 0 / > > 79 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00046|coverage|INFO|hmap_pathological 0 / > > 1 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00047|coverage|INFO|mac_learning_learned 0 / > > 14 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00048|coverage|INFO|mac_learning_expired 0 / > > 12 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00049|coverage|INFO|poll_zero_timeout 0 / > > 32 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00050|coverage|INFO|pstream_open 0 / > > 9 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00051|coverage|INFO|stream_open 0 / > > 1 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00052|coverage|INFO|netdev_set_policing 0 / > > 66 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00053|coverage|INFO|netdev_get_ifindex 0 / > > 10 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00054|coverage|INFO|netdev_get_hwaddr 0 / > > 9 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00055|coverage|INFO|netdev_set_hwaddr 0 / > > 5 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00056|coverage|INFO|netdev_ethtool 0 / > > 31 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00057|coverage|INFO|nln_changed 0 / > > 64 > > 1970-01-01T00:18:54Z|00058|coverage|INFO|52 events never hit > > > > These warnings are only generated when traffic hits the bridge at a high > > rate. Is it normal for OVS to show these warnings/information messages when > > dealing with high data rate traffic? Is there a way to hide or minimize > > them? > > > > Regards. > > - > > Farrukh Aftab Khan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > discuss@openvswitch.org > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
