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 B4D31567C for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:52:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:52:01 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="840791390" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:52:00 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:51:53 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20151214135153.GF29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <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> <20151214132808.GF18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151214132808.GF18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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 13:52:03 -0000 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:28:08PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > 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. Appreciate that! It'd be good if you could test with my v2 patch set: hopefully I could cook it up by the end of tomorrow. --yliu