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

[Venky Venkatesh]

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?
      - If it can be a heterogeneous set of ports, is the scheduling across
      those ports *weighted* round robin as opposed to round robin?
      - Are Speeds other than  1/10/40 GbE not supported?
      - I suppose this heterogeneous mix of port speeds is implemented by
      playing with the weights across ports, correct?
      - If so, what problem do you foresee if we provide arbitrary
      bandwidth ports by regulating the above weights?
   - 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?
Thanks
-Venky

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 2:54 AM Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>
wrote:

> Hi Venky,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasvinder
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Venky Venkatesh <vvenkatesh at paloaltonetworks.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2023 8:52 AM
> *To:* dev at 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 at 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/attachments/20230111/672c4a6e/attachment.htm>