> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniele Di Proietto [mailto:diproiet...@vmware.com] > Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 12:29 AM > To: Jan Wickbom <jan.wick...@ericsson.com> > Cc: discuss@openvswitch.org; Traynor, Kevin <kevin.tray...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] Problems with vsctl vhost-del/connected device, > OVS 2.4.0 with corrections from 2.4 > > Thanks for reporting this problem > > I think that if a user wants to remove a port, we should just remove the > port. > > Do you have any thought on this Kevin?
I agree that we should just remove it. Do you know why this check was > introduced in the first place? Not really sure tbh. The original code got bounced around a bit at the time. I think we can take out, but there's more related clean up that I'd like to add on top of that. I put a quick hack together but it's not fully working yet. I'll try and post something next week for it. Another thing to consider is that the vhost pmd will hopefully be with us in the not too distant future, so all going well a lot of this code may change. Kevin. > > Thanks > > On 24/02/2016 07:33, "discuss on behalf of Jan Wickbom" > <discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org on behalf of jan.wick...@ericsson.com> > wrote: > > >Hi, > >If a vhost-user port is deleted (vsctl del-port) while the vhost device > >is still attached to a VM, the port is ending up in some "semi-deleted" > >state. Even though we indicate a reject of the command in > >netdev_dpdk_vhost_destruct() by an ERROR log, we still run > >netdev_close()/netdev_unref() meaning the name is removed from > >netdev_shash and the memory is also freed (!), given back to dpdk. > >However, the device is NOT linked out from dpdk_list, meaning it will be > >handled in the dpdk_watchdog thread. Since the name is removed from > >netdev_shash, it is treated as not existing from an operators view. > >Whenever this newly freed memory is allocated again, a lot of strange > >things may happen to the "ghost device" present in the dpdk_list. > > > >I think the check for an attached vhost device should be done a lot > >earlier, maybe > >ofproto_port_delete() is a good place? > > > >I have only checked the vhost-user port type, may the same problem exists > >for other types as well? > > > >Anyone else seen the problem? > > > >BR > >/jaw > >_______________________________________________ > >discuss mailing list > >discuss@openvswitch.org > >http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
