> > On 02/08/2018 01:56 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote: > > Hi Ilya, > > > > Yes, that was the consensus yesterday in the OVS-DPDK call: Revert to > the legacy shared mempool for the 2.9 branch only prior to OVS 2.9.0 > release to avoid all issues with upgrades to 2.9 and compatibility > complications when backporting shared mempool to the 2.9 branch post the > release. > >
Ok, I misunderstood yesterday, I assumed the revert would be for master also. But if people are happy to keep the revert to Branch 2.9 that’s fine with me. The RFC I sent out should apply to 2.9 without issue. Thanks Ian > > Let me say quickly, it was the consensus on the call, but no binding > decisions are made there - the mailing list is the only place for that. > I haven't sent the minutes yet as it's only been a few working hours for > me since the meeting. I will send a separate reply about the technical > issue. > > Kevin. > > > On the master branch we would then start a new attempt at a flexible, > backward compatible and economic mempool solution for the 2.10 track. > > > > BR, Jan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, 08 February, 2018 13:19 > >> To: [email protected]; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Jan Scheurich <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor > >> <[email protected]>; Flavio Leitner <[email protected]>; Aaron Conole > >> <[email protected]>; Ciara Loftus <[email protected]>; Mark > >> Kavanagh <[email protected]>; Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] OVS DPDK Mempool revert > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> As discussed on the OVS-DPDK community call, I've manually reverted > >>> the per port mempool changes in OVS-DPDK on a branch on my > >> own git hub. This had to be re-introduced manually due to the number > >> of commits and work that had went on top of the per port > implementation. > >>> > >>> For testing people can access it from the link below: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/istokes/ovs/tree/mempool_revert > >>> > >>> If we are to revert this in time for OVS 2.9 there is a need for > >>> validation among the community to ensure that it does not break any > >> features. I have validated most existing features with VSperf but I'm > >> more interested in ensuring existing user test cases do not break with > this revert. > >> > >> I thought that we wanted to update the documentation for now with new > >> memory requirements, prepare new mempool model for 2.10 and backport > >> it to 2.9 if necessary., As mentioned here: > >> > >> > >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-January/04610 > >> 1.html > >> > >> I'm sorry, but I see no meeting minutes for the latest OVS-DPDK sync > call. > >> > >> In general, I think that temporary reverting of the current model > >> looks not so pretty. Especially if we're going to almost revert this > >> revertion in the future. > >> > >> Does you RFC patch intended for branch-2.9 only? In this case it may > >> be acceptable. We'll continue working on current model for 2.10 to > >> fix all the issues or implement some completely new model. And > >> branch-2.9 will be left with shared mempool model forever. Did I > understand correctly? > >> > >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
