t;> From: Christian Hopps
>> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 5:09 PM
>> To: Dave Barach (dbarach)
>> Cc: Christian Hopps ; vpp-dev
>> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interesting backtrace in 1908
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>> In fact in 19.08 the value is left as 0 which defa
ave Barach (dbarach)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; vpp-dev
> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interesting backtrace in 1908
>
> Bingo.
>
> In fact in 19.08 the value is left as 0 which defaults to 15. I took it from
> 20 down to 15, starting successfully until I reached 15 which then hit the
y, June 5, 2020 5:09 PM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach)
Cc: Christian Hopps ; vpp-dev
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interesting backtrace in 1908
Bingo.
In fact in 19.08 the value is left as 0 which defaults to 15. I took it from 20
down to 15, starting successfully until I reached 15 which then hit the pro
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 4:28 PM
> To: Dave Barach (dbarach)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; vpp-dev
> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interesting backtrace in 1908
>
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2020, at 2:10
Christian Hopps ; vpp-dev
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interesting backtrace in 1908
> On Jun 5, 2020, at 2:10 PM, Dave Barach via lists.fd.io
> wrote:
>
> Step 1 is to make the silly-looking sibling recursion in
> vlib_node_add_next_with_slot(...) disappear. I’m on it...
>
75cbe8b1 in clib_mov16 (dst=0x6d986a57 , src=0x2d8f0700006c2d08 ) at
/var/build/vpp/src/vppinfra/memcpy_sse3.h:56
56 {
Thanks,
Chris.
>
> Thanks... Dave
>
> From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:29 PM
> To: vpp-dev
> Cc:
Dear Chris,
Does this happen w/ master/latest? Can you share the startup config so I can
try to repro the problem?
Thanks... Dave
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:29 PM
To: vpp-dev
Cc: Christian Hopps
Subject: [vpp-dev] Interesting
Hopps
Subject: [vpp-dev] Interesting backtrace in 1908
I'm wondering if maybe this SIGSEGV/backtrace might be related to the other
recently reported problem with the FIB and barrier code? The workers are at the
barrier when the SIGSEGV happens, but maybe they aren't when they need to b
I'm wondering if maybe this SIGSEGV/backtrace might be related to the other
recently reported problem with the FIB and barrier code? The workers are at the
barrier when the SIGSEGV happens, but maybe they aren't when they need to be
earlier on?
In this case I've compiled w/o CLIB_DEBUG set, but
