-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 275
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Optimize counter polling interval by making it more accurate #1457
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Optimize counter polling interval by making it more accurate #1457
Conversation
This PR requires swss to be updated correspondingly. The swss PR will be opened soon. |
Depends on sonic-net/sonic-swss-common#950 |
c14fd22
to
6b362f6
Compare
6b362f6
to
b82e233
Compare
b82e233
to
5442b37
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
5442b37
to
6c1086a
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
9624365
to
677bfc2
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
@kcudnik Would you help to review the PR? |
please fix build |
I triggered a build a week ago but it fetches swss-common from build #728172 which was built more than two weeks ago and my commit wasn't in. Retriggering it.
|
/azpw run |
/AzurePipelines run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
maybe it would require some empty commit to add to this PR to trigger fetch new swss common |
will do a force push |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
57c81d5
to
44a3c65
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
What I did
Optimize the counter-polling performance in terms of polling interval accuracy
Enable bulk counter-polling to run at a smaller chunk size
There is one counter-polling thread for each counter group. All such threads can compete for the critical sections at the vendor SAI level, which means a counter-polling thread can wait for a critical section if another thread has been in it, which introduces latency for the waiting counter group.
An example is the competition between the PFC watchdog and the port counter groups.
The port counter group contains many counters and is polled in a bulk mode which takes a relatively longer time. The PFC watchdog counter group contains only a few counters but is polled at a short interval. Sometimes, PFC watchdog counters need to wait before polling, which makes the polling interval inaccurate and prevents the PFC storm from being detected in time.
To resolve this issue, we can reduce the chunk size of the port counter group. The port counter group polls the counters of all ports in a single bulk operation by default. By using a smaller chunk size, it polls the counters in several bulk operations with each polling counter of a subset (whose size <=
chunk size
) of all ports.By doing so, the port counter group stays in the critical section for a shorter time and the PFC watchdog is more likely to be scheduled to poll counters and detect the PFC storm in time.
Collect the time stamp immediately after vendor SAI API returns.
Currently, many counter groups require a Lua plugin to execute based on polling interval, to calculate rates, detect certain events, etc.
Eg. For PFC watchdog counter group to PFC storm. In this case, the polling interval is calculated based on the difference of time stamps between the
current
andlast
poll to avoid deviation due to scheduling latency. However, the timestamp is collected in the Lua plugin which is several steps after the SAI API returns and is executed in a different context (redis-server). Both introduce even larger deviations. To overcome this, we collect the timestamp immediately after the SAI API returns.Why I did it
How I verified it
Run regression test and observe counter-polling performance.
A comparison test shows very good results if we put any/or all of the above optimizations.
Details if related
For 2, each counter group contains more than one counter context based on the type of objects. counter context is mapped from (group, object type). But the counters fetched from different counter groups will be pushed into the same entry for the same objects.
eg. PFC_WD group contains counters of ports and queues. PORT group contains counters of ports. QUEUE_STAT group contains counters of queues.
Both PFC_WD and PORT groups will push counter data into an item representing a port. but each counter has its own polling interval, which means counter IDs polled from different counter groups can be polled with different time stamps.
We use the name of a counter group to identify the time stamp of the counter group.
Eg. In port counter entry, PORT_timestamp represents last time when the port counter group polls the counters. PFC_WD_timestamp represents the last time when the PFC watchdog counter group polls the counters