From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C6C374F for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:28:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46516C0C7C99; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pxdev.xzpeter.org (vpn1-6-34.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.6.34]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBEDS8Vg015904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:28:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:28:08 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: Yuanhan Liu Message-ID: <20151214132808.GF18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com> <20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com> <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <00c401d13641$5e53cf20$1afb6d60$@samsung.com> <20151214090406.GC18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <00ec01d13654$5f904c20$1eb0e460$@samsung.com> <20151214120937.GC29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20151214130022.GE18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support 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: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:28:15 -0000 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > Peter, > > Thanks for your input, and that sounds reasonable. You just reminded > me that the host1's NIC is indeed different with host2's NIC: the ovs > bridge mac address is different. > > I then had a quick try, setting the two ovs bridge with same mac > address, and it works like a charm: the gap is gone :) Good to know that. :) I will try to do some tests too using the patchset. Not sure whether I will encounter the same KVM warning (seems related to APIC, however still could not tell more than that). Will update you if there is anything helpful. Peter > > --yliu