You are not logged in.
So, I recently had to install openvswitch primarily to use it with dpdk.
While, dpdk is even listed as a dependency of openvswitch, it seems the package pullling from the repos actually doesn't have dpdk support.
I had to compile and install a version of openvswitch myself so as to enable dpdk support( --with-dpdk=shared )
Is there any reason why dpdk support is not enabled by default?
Offline
it seems the package pullling from the repos actually doesn't have dpdk support
How did you verify that ?
Does the previous version 3.5.1 have that support ?
Moderator Note
not in aur issue, moving to Pacman & Package Upgrade Issues for now.
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
it seems the package pullling from the repos actually doesn't have dpdk support
How did you verify that ?
1) There's a message indicating that in the logs
2) https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … penvswitch - The PKGBUILD file in this repo, (I cannot tell for sure that that's what is being used) but yeah, the ./configure part of the PKGBUILD file seems to indicate that dpdk support isn't enabled.
Offline
1) There's a message indicating that in the logs
It would help if you posted that message.
The configure parts of PKGBUILDs for repo packages use upstream defaults as much as possible and only set what is necessary.
Whether dpdk support is default enabled by upstream or needs to be activated at buildtime is something I don't know .
Have you tried running openvswitch 3.5.21 and if so did that have dpdk support ?
Sidenote :
This could warrant a bug report against repo openvswitch, but you haven't provided enough info to determine if that's the correct follow up.
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
1) There's a message indicating that in the logs
It would help if you posted that message.
2026-03-30T05:58:12.791Z|00001|vlog|INFO|opened log file /var/log/openvswitch/ovs-vswitchd.log
2026-03-30T05:58:12.792Z|00002|ovs_numa|INFO|Discovered 8 CPU cores on NUMA node 0
2026-03-30T05:58:12.792Z|00003|ovs_numa|INFO|Discovered 1 NUMA nodes and 8 CPU cores
2026-03-30T05:58:12.792Z|00004|reconnect|INFO|unix:/var/run/openvswitch/db.sock: connecting...
2026-03-30T05:58:12.793Z|00005|reconnect|INFO|unix:/var/run/openvswitch/db.sock: connected
2026-03-30T05:58:12.794Z|00006|dpdk|ERR|DPDK not supported in this copy of Open vSwitch.
2026-03-30T05:58:12.797Z|00007|bridge|INFO|ovs-vswitchd (Open vSwitch) 3.7.0
2026-03-30T06:53:14.533Z|00008|memory|INFO|5428 kB peak resident set size after 3301.7 seconds
2026-03-30T06:53:14.533Z|00009|memory|INFO|idl-cells-Open_vSwitch:17
2026-04-15T08:46:10.659Z|00001|vlog|INFO|opened log file /var/log/openvswitch/ovs-vswitchd.log
2026-04-15T08:46:10.660Z|00002|ovs_numa|INFO|Discovered 8 CPU cores on NUMA node 0
2026-04-15T08:46:10.660Z|00003|ovs_numa|INFO|Discovered 1 NUMA nodes and 8 CPU cores
2026-04-15T08:46:10.660Z|00004|reconnect|INFO|unix:/var/run/openvswitch/db.sock: connecting...
2026-04-15T08:46:10.660Z|00005|reconnect|INFO|unix:/var/run/openvswitch/db.sock: connected
2026-04-15T08:46:10.661Z|00006|dpdk|ERR|DPDK not supported in this copy of Open vSwitch.
2026-04-15T08:46:10.664Z|00007|bridge|INFO|ovs-vswitchd (Open vSwitch) 3.7.0
2026-04-15T11:33:30.848Z|00008|fatal_signal|WARN|terminating with signal 15 (Terminated)Have you tried running openvswitch 3.5.21 and if so did that have dpdk support ?
No, I have not tried openvswitch-3.5.21...
The configure parts of PKGBUILDs for repo packages use upstream defaults as much as possible and only set what is necessary.
I guess that answers my original question. Thanks
Last edited by ReDress (2026-04-19 12:48:11)
Offline
Thanks, that clarifies the openvswitch packages currently doesn't support dpdk .
Since it depends on dpdk that's weird and smells like a bug .
In my opinion there's now enough info to file a bug report at https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … work_items.
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline