Thanks Ilya,
yeah we usually wait for the point releases as they undergo some extra
testing and verification.
.1 shouldn't be too much into the future I guess.
Thanks a lot for identifying.
That said, I'd still go on with Yuanhan to finalize the dpdk side leak fix
we identified, so we eventually g
Hi, Christian.
You're, likely, using tar archive with openvswitch from openvswitch.org.
It doesn't contain many bug fixes from git/branch-2.5 unfortunately.
The problem that you are facing has been solved in branch-2.5 by
commit d9df7b9206831631ddbd90f9cbeef1b4fc5a8e89
Author: Ilya Maximets
Date
Hi,
I can follow your argument that - and agree that in this case the leak
can't be solved your patch.
Still I found it useful to revise it along our discussion as eventually it
will still be a good patch to have.
I followed your suggestion and found:
- rte_vhost_driver_register callocs vserver (im
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:04:03PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Thanks Ilya,
> yeah we usually wait for the point releases as they undergo some extra testing
> and verification.
> .1 shouldn't be too much into the future I guess.
> Thanks a lot for identifying.
>
> That said, I'd still go on
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:01:26PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> Hi, Christian.
> You're, likely, using tar archive with openvswitch from openvswitch.org.
> It doesn't contain many bug fixes from git/branch-2.5 unfortunately.
>
> The problem that you are facing has been solved in branch-2.5 by
>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:18:49AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Yuanhan Liu
> 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
> connectivi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Yuanhan Liu
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 invo
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:33:50PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for the patch.
> I backported it this way to my DPDK 2.2 based environment for now (see below):
>
> With that applied one (and only one) of my two guests looses connectivity
> after
> removing the ports the first t
Hi,
thanks for the patch.
I backported it this way to my DPDK 2.2 based environment for now (see
below):
With that applied one (and only one) of my two guests looses connectivity
after removing the ports the first time.
No traffic seems to pass, setting the device in the guest down/up doesn't
get
I assume there is a leak somewhere on adding/removing vhost_user ports.
Although it could also be "only" a fragmentation issue.
Reproduction is easy:
I set up a pair of nicely working OVS-DPDK connected KVM Guests.
Then in a loop I
- add up to more 512 ports
- test connectivity between the t
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:46:50AM -0700, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:18:05PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > I assume there is a leak somewhere on adding/removing vhost_user ports.
> > Although it could also be "only" a fragmentation issue.
> >
> > Reproduction is easy:
>
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:18:05PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> I assume there is a leak somewhere on adding/removing vhost_user ports.
> Although it could also be "only" a fragmentation issue.
>
> Reproduction is easy:
> I set up a pair of nicely working OVS-DPDK connected KVM Guests.
> The
12 matches
Mail list logo
