Re: [2nd Try]:Re: Traffic Management API Questions

[Venky Venkatesh <vvenkatesh@paloaltonetworks.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9735 bytes --]

Thanks Jasvinder. I guess we are on the same page. With the design that you
mention we run short by 1 level of hierarchy -- which is why I was
originally asking for the difficulty of adding a layer. I think I
understand your assessment in that regard i.e. it is easier to add a shaped
dequeue at the roots in the application as opposed to add an additional
layer

Pls correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise Thanks for all your inputs
-Venky

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 3:39 AM Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>
wrote:

> Hi Venky,
>
>
>
> Please see inline;
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasvinder
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Venky Venkatesh <vvenkatesh@paloaltonetworks.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 16, 2023 8:06 AM
> *To:* Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>
> *Cc:* dev@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [2nd Try]:Re: Traffic Management API Questions
>
>
>
> Hi Jasvinder,
>
> Thanks for the insights on the complexity of adding a layer.
>
> As for the workaround that you suggested using multiple subports, if I
> understand it correctly (*pls correct if I misunderstood*) it would not
> meet our needs:
>
>    - We require multiple heterogeneous ports (i.e. ports with different
>    bandwidths -- with no excess sharing since these are port limits). That
>    would probably need some shaper attached there too since WRR (at the
>    application) would share the instantaneous excess among the siblings.
>
> ·  As for the 2nd second suggestion (increase the number of subports):
> our need (*in addition to* multiple ports of different bandwidths at the
> top level) is to have  4 more TM layers for a total of 5. I am *not*
> looking at the assignment of the terms port/subport/user/pipe etc in the
> DPDK documentation -- instead am looking at it as abstract scheduling
> (and/or shaping) layers with differing abilities in some layers. So in
> order to compensate for the missing shaper at the port level I was planning
> to add 1 additional layer (so that what in DPDK documentation is referred
> to as subport is actually a port -- since the subport layer has the
> property of *not sharing* excess between siblings. With that principle, I
> am not clear how adding width to the subport layer (as I understand your
> suggestion) would help.
>
> [JS] – I was suggesting to assume subports as ports in the existing
> implementation and assign fixed bandwidth to each of the subports. By doing
> so, you would have multiple subports (re-named as ports) with shaper
> attached. Only limitation in such solution is that hierarchy would have
> single root node with the bandwidth equal to sum of subports bandwidth and
> all the subports would be served individually in round robin manner. If it
> doesn’t suit your  requirement, you need to make changes as you suggested
> above.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Venky
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:24 AM Singh, Jasvinder <
> jasvinder.singh@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Venky,
>
>
>
> Please see inline;
>
>
>
> Jasvinder
>
>
>
> *From:* Venky Venkatesh <vvenkatesh@paloaltonetworks.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:56 AM
> *To:* Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>
> *Cc:* dev@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [2nd Try]:Re: Traffic Management API Questions
>
>
>
> Hi Jasvinder,
>
> Thanks for the detailed answers. Our need is to have shaping at the port
> level as well. I am trying to see what would be the way to accomplish this
> given the current limitations of the sched library implementation in this
> regard. I see 2 options:
>
>    - The top level (i.e. port level) documentation says the following:
>    "Output Ethernet port 1/10/40 GbE" and "Multiple ports are scheduled
>    in round robin order with all ports having equal priority". Questions:
>
>
>    - Do all the ports have to be of the same speed OR can it be a
>       heterogeneous set of port speeds?
>
> [JS] – the library supports single port (root node) of the hierarchy. Each
> port can have multiple subports configured using different shaping rates.
> If you desire to have multiple ports, each port would have separate
> hierarchical tree underneath. Different ports could have different speed.
>
> o If it can be a heterogeneous set of ports, is the scheduling across
> those ports *weighted* round robin as opposed to round robin?
>
> [JS] – Scheduling across multiple ports is not supported in current sched
> library. At the application level, one can think of invoking
> enqueue/dequeue sched API in round robin or weighted round robin manner.
>
>    - Are Speeds other than  1/10/40 GbE not supported?
>
> [JS] – Speeds other than above is supported, for eg. 25G, 50G etc.
>
>    - I suppose this heterogeneous mix of port speeds is implemented by
>       playing with the weights across ports, correct?
>
> [JS] -please see above answers
>
>    - If so, what problem do you foresee if we provide arbitrary bandwidth
>       ports by regulating the above weights?
>
> [JS] – I don’t see any issue.
>
>    - The other alternative would be to add another layer (which has a
>    shaper)  to the hierarchy by mimicking one of the existing layers: how
>    amenable is the current implementation to that?
>
> Do either of the above look like workable ideas? Are there any other
> approaches where we could accomplish our requirement with minimal changes
> to the code logic?
>
> [JS] – adding another layer will require considerable work in library. How
> about using multiple subports with different shaping bandwidth where each
> subport maintain #subcribers and send traffic out through single physical
> port (root node). It will need less effort and library supports multiple
> subports under single port (root node).
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Venky
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 2:54 AM Singh, Jasvinder <
> jasvinder.singh@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Venky,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasvinder
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Venky Venkatesh <vvenkatesh@paloaltonetworks.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2023 8:52 AM
> *To:* dev@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* [2nd Try]:Re: Traffic Management API Questions
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Can someone pls get back on these
>
> Thanks
>
> -Venky
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:07 AM Venky Venkatesh <
> vvenkatesh@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the DPDK Traffic Management API. I wanted to clarify some
> things that I understand from the code (for software based TM
> implementation (at 20.11)) vs the documentation.
>
> ·         The documentation says "Traffic shaping: single/*dual rate**,* private
> (*per node*) and shared (by *multiple nodes*) shapers" are supported.
> However it appears that the code supports only *single *rate shapers. Is
> my understanding correct?
>
> [JS] – Yes, TM API supports single and dual rate shapers, privately per
> node as well as shared across multiple nodes. However, DPDK QoS scheduler
> library implements single rate shaper at nodes.
>
> o    If not, pls point me to where dual rate shaping is supported in the
> software based TM implementation code.
>
> o    However, if my understanding is correct, can the authors clarify the
> nature of issues they ran into in supporting dual rate (which thus
> prevented them from implementing it)?
>
> [JS] – There isn’t any issue except more complexity. Author can rework the
> library to implement the dual rate shapers for the desired nodes depending
> upon the requirement.
>
> ·         The documentation comment above sounds like every node can have
> shapers. However it appears that the code does not support shaping at the
> port level. Again the same questions as above(regarding the accuracy of my
> understanding and if it is accurate, the reasons from the author for not
> supporting it)
>
> [JS] – Implementation supports shapers at subport (group of pipes) and
> pipe level. The bandwidth available at the port level is distributed among
> the subports with the condition that aggregate bandwidth of subports should
> not exceed the port bandwidth. Each subport buffers and shape the traffic
> from the pipes depending upon the port bandwidth allocated to it.
> Implementation doesn’t support distribution of unused bandwidth of one
> subport to another subport. However, one can modify this behaviour if
> needed.
>
> ·         At the level of the TM API (*and* the associated software TM
> implementation) are there any restrictions on the number of levels of QoS
> hierarchy we can construct?
>
> [JS] – TM API doesn’t restrict the number of QoS scheduler levels and
> generic enough to work with hierarchical schedulers with any number of
> levels. The current dpdk sched library implementation supports fixed 5
> level scheduler hierarchy.
>
> ·         Lastly, does the QoS framework API (which I suppose is built on
> lower level building blocks including the TM API) expose the entire
> capabilities of the TM API (e.g. dual rate shapers, shapers at port level,
> > 4 levels of shaping etc.)? From the reading of the documentation it
> appears that there may be restrictions imposed by the QoS framework API on
> top of what TM API imposes. Can someone pls confirm this (and if so, the
> reason for doing so)?
>
> [JS] – No, QoS framework API (DPDK sched library) presents only one
> flavour of hierarchical scheduler and doesn’t implements all the features
> exposed through TM API.  However, more features can be added to library and
> configured through TM API.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Venky
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18309 bytes --]