Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
The FDP team is no longer accepting new bugs in Bugzilla. Please report your issues under FDP project in Jira. Thanks.

Bug 1749840

Summary: [OVN]cpu is high after create a lot of logical ports
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Fast Datapath Reporter: haidong li <haili>
Component: openvswitch2.11Assignee: Flavio Leitner <fleitner>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Jianlin Shi <jishi>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: FDP 19.FCC: ctrautma, dcbw, fhallal, fleitner, jhsiao, jiji, jishi, nusiddiq, ralongi
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 1748731 Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-12-12 03:25:40 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 1748731    
Bug Blocks: 1749610    

Comment 1 Numan Siddique 2019-09-09 09:46:41 UTC
I logged into the setup and looked into  a bit.
Something seems wrong with ovs-vswitchd. ovn-controller is breaking connection with the ovs-vswitchd (openflow connection) and it is reconnecting all the time.
That is why we are seeing high cpu usage in ovn-controller.
Looks like we need to investigate ovs-vswitchd and see what is going on there.

I don't think this is OVN issue.

Comment 4 Jianlin Shi 2019-12-05 10:06:00 UTC
I have tried with dell-per740-12.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com and dell-per730-40.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com to reproduce the issue. the adding of logical ports are still in progress. but the cpu usage for ovs-vswitched is already very high. you can log in with root/redhat

Comment 5 Flavio Leitner 2019-12-05 13:51:04 UTC
Hi,

Looks like runtest.sh is trying to add one port at a time using ovs-vsctl command and already added 1762 ports.
The problem is that every time a port is added, OvS has to reconfigure itself, flush data like FDB and so on.
The load issue is an old complain and we already have a few bugs about that, but the questions remain open.

See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731165

I am not sure about the goal of the test. If you just want to add as many ports as possible to run other tests
maybe the batch solution proposed in the BZ above solves the issue.

Thanks
fbl

Comment 6 Jianlin Shi 2019-12-06 00:45:10 UTC
(In reply to Flavio Leitner from comment #5)
> Hi,
> 
> Looks like runtest.sh is trying to add one port at a time using ovs-vsctl
> command and already added 1762 ports.
> The problem is that every time a port is added, OvS has to reconfigure
> itself, flush data like FDB and so on.
> The load issue is an old complain and we already have a few bugs about that,
> but the questions remain open.
> 
> See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731165
> 
> I am not sure about the goal of the test. If you just want to add as many
> ports as possible to run other tests
> maybe the batch solution proposed in the BZ above solves the issue.
> 
> Thanks
> fbl

confirmed that cpu usage would be low after finish adding ports.
but it's really slow to add mass of ports, any bug to track that?

Comment 7 Flavio Leitner 2019-12-06 12:33:13 UTC
(In reply to Jianlin Shi from comment #6)
> confirmed that cpu usage would be low after finish adding ports.
> but it's really slow to add mass of ports, any bug to track that?

The recommendation is to add ports in batches then.
It's one single operation inside OvS to add the batch.

fbl

Comment 8 Jianlin Shi 2019-12-08 04:24:47 UTC
(In reply to Flavio Leitner from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jianlin Shi from comment #6)
> > confirmed that cpu usage would be low after finish adding ports.
> > but it's really slow to add mass of ports, any bug to track that?
> 
> The recommendation is to add ports in batches then.
> It's one single operation inside OvS to add the batch.
> 
> fbl

ok

Comment 9 Flavio Leitner 2019-12-10 20:01:54 UTC
(In reply to Jianlin Shi from comment #8)
Can we close the bug?
fbl

Comment 10 Jianlin Shi 2019-12-11 02:35:07 UTC
(In reply to Flavio Leitner from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jianlin Shi from comment #8)
> Can we close the bug?
> fbl

yes, please close it per comment 7

Comment 11 Flavio Leitner 2019-12-12 03:25:40 UTC
Thank you!
fbl

Comment 12 Flavio Leitner 2020-02-12 11:20:10 UTC
*** Bug 1749610 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***