> -----Original Message----- > From: Pavel Fedin [mailto:p.fedin at samsung.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 5:40 PM > To: Tan, Jianfeng; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/5] virtio support for container > > Hello! > > > First of all, when you say openvswitch, are you referring to ovs-dpdk? > > I am referring to mainline ovs, compiled with dpdk, and using userspace > dataplane. > AFAIK ovs-dpdk is early Intel fork, which is abandoned at the moment. > > > And can you detail your test case? Like, how do you want ovs_on_host and > ovs_in_container to > > be connected? > > Through two-direct-connected physical NICs, or one vhost port in > ovs_on_host and one virtio > > port in ovs_in_container? > > vhost port. i. e. > > | > LOCAL------dpdkvhostuser<----+---->cvio----->LOCAL > ovs | ovs > | > host | container > > By this time i advanced in my research. ovs not only crashes by itself, but > manages to crash host side. It does this by doing > reconfiguration sequence without sending VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE, > therefore host-side ovs tries to refer old addresses and dies > badly.
Yes, this case is exactly suited for this patchset. Before you start another ovs_in_container, previous ones get killed? If so, vhost information in ovs_on_host will be wiped as the unix socket is broken. And by the way, ovs just allows one virtio for one vhost port, much different from the exmpale, vhost-switch. Thanks, Jianfeng > Those messages about memory pool already being present are perhaps OK. > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia >
