On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:33:50PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > [...] > > With that applied one (and only one) of my two guests looses > connectivity after > > removing the ports the first time. > > Yeah, that's should be because I invoked the "->destroy_device()" > callback. > Shouldn't that not only destroy the particular vhost_user device I remove? See below for some better details on the test to clarify that. BTW, I'm curious how do you do the test? I saw you added 256 ports, but > with 2 guests only? So, 254 of them are idle, just for testing the > memory leak bug? > Maybe I should describe it better: 1. Spawn some vhost-user ports (40 in my case) 2. Spawn a pair of guests that connect via four of those ports per guest 3. Guests only intialize one of that vhost_user based NICs 4. check connectivity between guests via the vhost_user based connection (working at this stage) LOOP 5-7: 5. add ports 41-512 6. remove ports 41-512 7. check connectivity between guests via the vhost_user based connection So the vhost_user ports the guests are using are never deleted. Only some extra (not even used) ports are added&removed in the loop to search for potential leaks over a longer lifetime of an openvswitch-dpdk based solution.