Hi, Mauricio. Oh, I accidently dropped the the list. Thank you for reply.
Thanks, Junguk 2016-09-08 14:26 GMT-06:00 Mauricio Vasquez <mauricio.vasq...@polito.it>: > Hi, > > Please don't drop the list, it could be interesting to more people. > On 09/08/2016 06:55 PM, Junguk Cho wrote: > > Hi, Mauricio. > > Thank you for reply. > I have following questions. > > Are you using physical ports? > If yes, are they physically connected to socket1? > > Currently, I did not add physical ports. I just add ring devices. > However, later I will use physcal ports also. > How will I know physical port is connected to socket1? > > You should get the pci address of the device (using lspci for example) and > then you can use > cat /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../numa_node > > In addition, if it is connected into socket1, it may uses multiple sockets. > Is it right? > > I am not totally sure about it, I think that ovs only creates PMD threads > in the same socket of the device, it is a bad idea to process the packets > in another socket as them would have to pass from one processor to another > reducing the performance. > > > > I am planning to both sockets for multiple ring devices. > Would you please elaborate " but due to DPDK limitations it is not > possible to implemented it in a clean way right now"? > > There are two limitations basically, the first one is that the socket of a > ring device can only be specified at creation time, the second one is that > a ring device can not be destroyed. > Unfortunately, in ovs there is not a way to select the socket of the > device when creating it, so the implementation would require to first > create the device and then change the socket of it, what is not possible. > > The only idea that I have on mind is to use the name of the device in > order to determine the socket where it has to be created, a cleaner > solution requires further support of DPDK, > > Regards, > > Mauricio V. > > > Thanks, > Junguk > > 2016-09-08 10:05 GMT-06:00 Mauricio Vasquez <mauricio.vasq...@polito.it>: > >> Hi Junguk, >> >> On 09/08/2016 05:07 PM, Junguk Cho wrote: >> >> Hi, I used OVS with dpdk. >> >> When I started ovs, I used this option to pin some cores for ovs. >> sudo ovs-vsctl --no-wait set Open_vSwitch . >> other_config:pmd-cpu-mask=0xf0000000 >> >> In my setup, it has two sockets, but with this option, two cores in first >> socket shows 100% cpu utilization. >> >> Are you using physical ports? If yes, are they physically connected to >> socket1? >> >> In addition, when I created dpdk ring >> devices, they are created in only first socket. >> >> Does current version of OVS with dpdk support multiple sockets? >> >> Yes and not, it is supported for dpdk physical ports. Unfortunately dpdkr >> ports are only created in the first socket, the code should be modified to >> create them in other socket. Some time ago I was thinking on a solution for >> it, but due to DPDK limitations it is not possible to implemented it in a >> clean way right now. If you only need to have rings in the second socket, >> you just have to change the socket parameter in the call to >> rte_eth_from_rings(), >> on the other hand, if you need to have rings on both sockets it could be >> possible to implement a logic based on the port number, something like >> rings from 0 to 99 are processed in socket0 and from 100 to 199 in socket1. >> Of course these are just workarounds that could not be integrated in ovs. >> >> If so, are there other options to use both? >> >> >> Thanks, >> Junguk >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing >> listdev@openvswitch.orghttp://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> Mauricio V, >> >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
