From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shreyansh Jain Subject: Re: error in testpmd when CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <357262EF-AA7B-4064-963E-FF130E4607E6@atomicrules.com> <1675520.qVeAGBHxLM@xps13> <20170412100521.GB20092@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170412103855.GA36092@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170412104203.GA38724@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Thomas Monjalon , john miller , "dev@dpdk.org" , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3B33005 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:02:28 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170412104203.GA38724@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:12 PM > To: Shreyansh Jain > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; john miller > ; dev@dpdk.org; olivier.matz@6wind.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB= =3Dy >=20 > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:38:55AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:33:10AM +0000, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > > My bad - I was too quick in replying - some clarification beneath. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Shreyansh Jain > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:55 PM > > > > To: 'Bruce Richardson' > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; john miller > > > > ; dev@dpdk.org; olivier.matz@6wind.com > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=3Dy > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:35 PM > > > > > To: Shreyansh Jain > > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; john miller > > > > > ; dev@dpdk.org; olivier.matz@6wind.c= om > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=3Dy > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 04:52:47AM +0000, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:58 AM > > > > > > > To: john miller > > > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; olivier.matz@6wind.com; Shreyansh Jain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=3Dy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-11 14:02, john miller: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are seeing an issue when running from the head of the ma= ster > > > > branch > > > > > in > > > > > > > dpdk-next-net and building with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB= =3Dy. > When > > > > we > > > > > run > > > > > > > testpmd using -d to point to our PMD we get this error > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EAL: Error - exiting with code: 1 > > > > > > > > Cause: Creation of mbuf pool for socket 0 failed: Invalid > argument > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This error occurs as a result of the rte mempool ops table > having 0 > > > > > > > entries. This table is populated from a call to > > > > > rte_mempool_register_ops(). > > > > > > > This function gets called in rte_mempool_ring.c via the stati= c > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > MACRO MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS and exists in librte_mempool_ring.= so. > > > > However > > > > > > > this library is not loaded when the rte_eal_init() gets calle= d so > the > > > > > static > > > > > > > initializers are not yet loaded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am requesting advice on the proper way to repair this. > > > > > > > > > > > > "-d" the ring library (rte_mempool_ring) - just like any other > shared > > > > lib. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a bug that should be fixed. The user should not n= eed > to > > > > > have to specify a mempool driver just to get testpmd working, so = I > think > > > > > the ring handler as default should be compiled in automatically s= o as > to > > > > > allow regular mempools to just work as before. > > > > > > > > For Ring Mempool as default enabled, +1 > > > > > > Actually, Ring mempool is enabled by default. But, obviously for shar= ed > library case, this still means "-d". > > > > > > > Not necessarily. That only applies if we don't explicitly link it like > > the other shared libraries. We "special-case" our drivers in that we > > don't add them with a -l flag, but expect the user to dynamically load > > them at runtime. This is one case where I think all apps should > > explicitly link against the ring mempool driver. There is no reason we > > can't make some drivers mandatory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This change was done recently to move ring handler into its > separate > > > > > drivers/mempool/ring directory. That also means it no longer is > compiled > > > > into > > > > > the librte_mempool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should just add a better error message if no mempool drive= r is > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is something to be improved. > > > > > > > > > > This should be fixed by always having a mempool driver installed. > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > Probably, as ring mempool is a driver and compiled in shared mode, > enabled by default will not fix this. > > > > But linked in by default will fix it. > > > And as follow-up to my own mail, I think we can actually go further > here. Mempool is a core library, and very little can be done in DPDK > without it. It's also not what most people would think as needing a > driver loaded, so from a usability point of view, I don't see why we > shouldn't link in all mempool drivers by default, like we do other libs. > It will make users life easier, and I can't see any downside to doing > so - they are just .so's after all! =20 I don't have a particularly strong opinion against this. For static build, we are already 'there' - mempool would be linked in with = testpmd. For Shared library, the idea is to have small footprint and leave it to use= r to link what is required, and what is not. Still, for usability sakes, we have three options: 1. Link all library - which might be more than just ring (stack, more to be= added soon...) 2. Only link ring by default - because that is also being used as default o= ption when creating the mempool (ring_mp_mc) 3. Don't link any (3) is a cleaner approach, but may not be a good usecase. But, going by (1)= would mean linking in unused mempool handler by default (yes, user could a= lways say 'n' in config file). So, if we are going to select the mempool as inbuild, we might as well have= it only for Ring (2). It's more important to make DPDK useful than to make it idealistic. :) >=20 > /Bruce