Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] If shared libraries are used vdev doesn't work anymore

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

01/08/2017 10:17, Gaëtan Rivet:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:23:50PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 31/07/2017 16:58, Dirk-Holger Lenz:
> > > If dpdk is built with 'CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y' then
> > > using the vdev feature (args: e.g. -c 3 -n 4 --vdev="crypto_openssl")
> > > the rte_eal_init() returns 'ERROR: failed to parse device "crypto_openssl"'.
> > > It looks to me that rte_eal_devargs_add() calling rte_eal_devargs_parse()
> > > is trying to check the device name before the shared libraries are read
> > > and the internal data arrays are setup.
> > 
> > Yes, you're right: eal_parse_args() is called before eal_plugins_init().
> > The fix is not small: we should split the args parsing to parse the
> > device arguments after loading shared libraries.
> > 
> > It is a release blocker.
> 
> I saw that yesterday, tried to investigate a bit.
> I have currently an issue when launching testpmd when
> BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y. Mbufs fail to be allocated. I was not able to find
> the root cause for this.

Have you loaded the mempool driver?

> Anyway, I guess there are two possible solutions:
> 
>   - Delayed device validation
>   - Earlier plugins init
> 
> Thomas you seem to propose the first one, I agree that it will probably
> be a little involved to implement but I guess it's feasible in time.
> However, I don't yet understand why the second one is not possible from
> the get-go. It makes sense in any case that the system should be
> stabilized as soon as possible - i.e. that underlying subsystems such as
> plugins and capabilities are loaded first to expose a stable set of
> capabilities to any subsequent initializations.

The problem is that the plugins initialization depends on tailqs, log
and memory initialization.

> So, I will lack time to investigate the issue with testpmd and shared
> libs. If anyone has any idea, I will gladly hear it. In the meantime, I
> will test those two solutions, see what would be feasible, and try to
> propose one shortly.

Thank you