Date

Attendees



Agenda

  • Start the Recording
  • Antitrust Policy
  • Agenda Bashing (Roll Call, Action Items (5 minutes)
  • Future plan for TPC (Alex to share some details)
  • Tungsten fabric with dpdk library from upstream
    • Compilation, commit to TF ?
    • Testing, what tests can be run to validate bugs/missing features in upstream code
    • TF-dev-env to include a build option for compilation against pre-compiled dpdk library/targets
  • General Topics

Minutes

  • Intel perf doc
    • Joseph still working on getting legal approval to release this
  • Joseph going on 9 week sabbatical next week
    • Getting coverage
    • Will email w/that info
  • Future plans for TPCs (third party code/binaries being used to build the containers)
    • The issue: Currently have no insight into what source is being used for TPCs
    • Alex summary of existing
      • Some prebuilt rpms
      • Some pre-built by Contrail
        • rpm specs
        • Built from source by Contrail team
      • Some very complicated dependencies
        • Very old, can't even find provenance
      • Generally best not to change anything
    • PS: Will need to use pre-built, then?
      • Artefacts stored in Nexus
      • Only option right now, not building from source
    • PS: Community would like to switch to the upstream binaries
      • Are some Juniper binaries have contrail- in the name, implying Contrail-related fixes are in there, would rather not use those
    • Alex: these are open source & Juniper handed them to the community as well, maybe just need to rename the binaries
      • PS: Won't work; are still not upstream code; would like to start transitioning to this (will be a process)
        • Enable more community/project independence
      • Would like to move away from privately-provided/-built libraries
  • Compiling TF with upstream dpdk
    • Would like to build with upstream dpdk rather than Contrail dpdk
    • Pre-built binary from dpdk.org should theoretically work
    • PS has made some minor changes in vrouter for this
      • Option in build process to pick which binaries to use
        • Doesn't work with just this
      • Was an assumption in the code in the stats collection
        • Configurable in upstream, assumed in Contrail
        • Add a void for it for now
      • Contrail variables for PKT_RX_GSO for TCP4/6
        • Contrail extension for GSO
        • Not sure how to work around this yet to get the compilation to work
        • JG: This has been around for a while, should upstream dpdk
          • PS: Don't know the process for this, since these flags won't be used by anyone else
          • JG: Sure, not used since they don't there exist yet
        • Rudra (RD): Is a config flag for this in Contrail kernel-based vrouter
          • Probably added this in their dpdk to support this in their code as well
        • PS: dpdk has own implementation of GSO support, though
          • But this looks like a TF/Contrail-specific implementation
          • Not getting benefit of complete GSO implementation in dpdk
    • Short term
      • Not change the functionality
      • Just run using dpdk.org binaries
    • Long term
      • Take advantage of features in upstream dpdk.org
    • Existing changes allow the compile to complete
      • Still need to test
      • Who defines what needs to be tested with dpdk when using an external library?
    • JG: Compile is step 1
      • Fix the GSO stuff
      • Does it start?
      • Test that it can pass traffic
      • Trace to make sure perf doesn't get degraded
    • Contrail dpdk is v18.05
      • PS's version isn't the same, same compile instructions don't work, missing patches
        • Can't compile with gcc optimization on in v18.05
      • So used v18.08
      • Community needs to figure this out
        • If not building with optimization on, will be a perf hit
        • Need to choose a version
      • JG suspects it'll be OK to move to v18.08
        • Will also need to look at LTS releases & decide whether to go that way (would be slower updates)
          • RD: People using it in production
          • Versioning isn't very agile for this
          • If we stick to LTS it'll be more stable
          • If customer needs certain hardware support, can request/contribute it from/to community or vendor
    • LG: For now, just trying to figure out the state of things
      • Then can start planning which release we wish to use and how to get there
  • Patch needs a review: https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/51201
    • Please have a look and give feedback on the patch

Action items