On 02/08/2018 01:56 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > Yes, that was the consensus yesterday in the OVS-DPDK call: Revert to the > legacy shared mempool for the 2.9 branch only prior to OVS 2.9.0 release to > avoid all issues with upgrades to 2.9 and compatibility complications when > backporting shared mempool to the 2.9 branch post the release. >
Let me say quickly, it was the consensus on the call, but no binding decisions are made there - the mailing list is the only place for that. I haven't sent the minutes yet as it's only been a few working hours for me since the meeting. I will send a separate reply about the technical issue. Kevin. > On the master branch we would then start a new attempt at a flexible, > backward compatible and economic mempool solution for the 2.10 track. > > BR, Jan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, 08 February, 2018 13:19 >> To: [email protected]; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jan Scheurich <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor >> <[email protected]>; Flavio Leitner <[email protected]>; Aaron Conole >> <[email protected]>; Ciara Loftus <[email protected]>; Mark Kavanagh >> <[email protected]>; Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] OVS DPDK Mempool revert >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As discussed on the OVS-DPDK community call, I've manually reverted the per >>> port mempool changes in OVS-DPDK on a branch on my >> own git hub. This had to be re-introduced manually due to the number of >> commits and work that had went on top of the per port >> implementation. >>> >>> For testing people can access it from the link below: >>> >>> https://github.com/istokes/ovs/tree/mempool_revert >>> >>> If we are to revert this in time for OVS 2.9 there is a need for validation >>> among the community to ensure that it does not break any >> features. I have validated most existing features with VSperf but I'm more >> interested in ensuring existing user test cases do not break with >> this revert. >> >> I thought that we wanted to update the documentation for now with new >> memory requirements, prepare new mempool model for 2.10 and backport it >> to 2.9 if necessary., As mentioned here: >> >> >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2018-January/046101.html >> >> I'm sorry, but I see no meeting minutes for the latest OVS-DPDK sync call. >> >> In general, I think that temporary reverting of the current model looks not >> so pretty. Especially if we're going to almost revert this revertion in the >> future. >> >> Does you RFC patch intended for branch-2.9 only? In this case it may be >> acceptable. We'll continue working on current model for 2.10 to fix all >> the issues or implement some completely new model. And branch-2.9 will be >> left with shared mempool model forever. Did I understand correctly? >> >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
