From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:30:54 +0300 Message-ID: <00c401d13641$5e53cf20$1afb6d60$@samsung.com> References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com> <20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com> <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: 'Peter Xu' , yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com (mailout2.w1.samsung.com [210.118.77.12]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39554567C for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:30:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from eucpsbgm1.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.244]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NZC004AD7JJGY30@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for dev@dpdk.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:30:55 +0000 (GMT) In-reply-to: <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> Content-language: ru List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hello! > When doing the ping, was it from the guest (to another host) or to > the guest (from another host)? >=20 > In any case, I still could not understand why the ping loss happened > in this test. >=20 > If ping from guest, no ARP refresh is required at all? ping from guest to host. Ok, my setup was: Host<------->openVSwitch<----------->guest LOCAL vhostuser So, in order to migrate the guest, i simply replicated this setup on = both hosts, with the same IPs on host side. And on both hosts i set up = the following ruleset for openvswitch: ovs-ofctl add-flow ovs-br0 in_port=3D1,actions=3Doutput:LOCAL ovs-ofctl add-flow ovs-br0 in_port=3DLOCAL,actions=3Doutput:1 And on the second host, for some reason, vhostuser port got no 2 in the = database instead of 1. Probably because first i added wrong port, then = added correct one, then removed the wrong one. So, as i wrote before - = please don't worry, the patch works fine, it was totally my lame fault. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia