Congratulations to the VPP community !!
From: csit-...@lists.fd.io [mailto:csit-...@lists.fd.io] On Behalf Of Edward
Warnicke
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:57 AM
To: vpp-dev ; csit-...@lists.fd.io
Subject: [csit-dev] VPP Release 18.07 is out!
VPP Release 18.07 is out. Packages are in the
VPP Release 18.07 is out. Packages are in the usual places.
Ed
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#9978): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/9978
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/23900471/21656
Group Owner:
At least in C, it’s perfectly possible: use
vl_client_connect_to_vlib_no_rx_pthread(...).
Follow the sketch in the default rx_thread_fn(..) pretty carefully. You’ll need
to manually implement a non-while(1) version of vl_msg_api_queue_handler(...).
Spin-waiting for replies will completely
Hi,
You can run synchronously, but then you need to find a way to deal with
asynchronous events. Like the want_ apis. src/vpp-api/client has a knob to
choose if you want the rx thread or not.
Cheers
Ole
> On 30 Jul 2018, at 23:19, Gudimetla, Leela Sankar wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are
Hello,
We are writing a client for VPP to configure it over the shared-memory
interface (similar to what VAT does).
I see that there is a rx_thread for processing responses from the server (VPP)
to process the replies asynchronously.
Do we need to use the thread? Or Can we get rid of it and
Prashant,
Dave is exactly right. If you still want to try out the LDP layer, I wouldn’t
set a global LD_PRELOAD variable because that will end up preloading all the
applications and, inevitably, to some unsupported usage patterns and crashes.
Instead, start only your app with LD_PRELOAD set,
Prashant,
The VCL LD_PRELOAD library is experimental and only works with a very
limited set of legacy POSIX sockets applications (and only with single
workers).
The conclusion based on the results of the initial experimentation with
LD_PRELOAD is that it is not a viable mechanism for
Before doing anything else: please revert to the previous DPDK version and see
if the issue vanishes.
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io On Behalf Of Peter Mikus via
Lists.Fd.Io
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:02 AM
To: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
Subject: [vpp-dev] CSIT -
Hi,
I have compiled VPP and it's running. I have an interface up and can
ping the IP applied there.
Now I am trying to bring up a legacy application TCP server (the one
which uses POSIX calls). So I set the LD_PRELOAD to point to
Hi,
Answers inline marked [nr]
/neale
From: on behalf of Gulakh
Date: Saturday, 28 July 2018 at 13:45
To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io"
Subject: [vpp-dev] L3VPN in VPP
Hi,
I have setup a VPLS scenario successfully and now I want to setup a L3VPN
scenario in VPP (L3VPN topology is in attachment).
Hi Damjan, guys,
Agree with Damjan,
We can use new vectorized checksum calculation instead of VPP existing
implementation also.
For my local GRE tunnel testing case, the code can improve 10% or so throughput
on haswell as well.
Another patch is submitted as Damjan suggested.
using ip_csum in
Hi,
A couple of corrections/additions:
Python spawns processes with proper CFS scheduling (I've tested this), so it's
VPP that's overriding CFS scheduling.
Damjan, assigning cpus to VPPs is not the problem. The problem is when multiple
make test frameworks in different Jenkins slaves try to
Hello vpp-dev,
I am looking for consultation. We started to test VPP for report on all LF CSIT
testbeds Skylakes and Haswells.
We are observing weird behavior. In each test we are using sequence to first
bring the both interfaces (physical up) by VAT:
sw_interface_set_flags sw_if_index
13 matches
Mail list logo
