From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B7BC3BC for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:54:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2016 00:54:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,469,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="655520370" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2016 00:54:58 -0800 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:55:36 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: "Tan, Jianfeng" Message-ID: <20160219085536.GU21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1450321921-27799-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1454043483-24579-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1454043483-24579-7-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <56C6B218.6080501@intel.com> <20160219070326.GR21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160219070326.GR21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/8] vhost: handle VHOST_USER_SEND_RARP request X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:55:00 -0000 On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:03:26PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:11:36PM +0800, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > > What I suggest here is to move user_send_rarp() to rte_vhost_dequeue_burst() > > using a flag to control, so that this arp packet can be broadcasted in its > > own L2 network. > > I have thought of that, too. It was given up because SEND_RARP request was > handled in different thread from rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(), leading to the > fact that the RARP packet will not be broadcasted immediately after migration > is done: it will be broadcasted only when rte_vhost_dequeue_burst() is invoked. > > I was thinking the delay might be a problem. While thinking it twice, it > doesn't look like one then. As GUEST_ANNOUNCE is also broadcasted by > rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(); it's enqueued by guest kernel though. And > judging that we are polling mode driver, it won't be an issue then. > > So, thanks. I will give it a quick try; it should work. It worked like a charm :) Thanks. --yliu