From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com>
Subject: Cleanup of secondary proc fbarray files?
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:36:36 +0000
Message-ID: <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E446F5E4D@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F4A98
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:37:19 +0200 (CEST)
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>

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 processe=
s and memory usage per application, and after enough repeat executions, the=
se 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