From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Cleanup of secondary proc fbarray files?
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:01:40 +0100
Message-ID: <71fb8cbc-cdc2-f1c7-dca9-ecbfac42e453@intel.com>
References: <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E446F5E4D@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A695A6A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  1 Aug 2018 10:01:43 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E446F5E4D@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 31-Jul-18 5:36 PM, Eads, Gage wrote:
> As far as I can tell, DPDK does not destroy secondary process fbarray 
> files – i.e. those whose names end with “_<PID>”. With enough secondary 
> processes and memory usage per application, and after enough repeat 
> executions, these can take up a significant amount of space. Is the user 
> expected to clean these up themselves, or is this a bug in DPDK?
> 
> Perhaps this is a good candidate for including in rte_eal_cleanup()?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gage
> 

Good point, this was my omission. This should be done in eal_cleaup().

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly