patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruce Richardson <>
To: Kevin Traynor <>
Cc:,,,, David Marchand <>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] telemetry: fix "in-memory" process socket conflicts
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:32:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YVRq0ru/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:28:53PM +0100, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> On 24/09/2021 17:18, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > When DPDK is run with --in-memory mode, multiple processes can run
> > simultaneously using the same runtime dir. This leads to each process
> > removing another process' telemetry socket as it started up, giving
> > unexpected behaviour.
> > 
> > This patch changes that behaviour to first check if the existing socket
> > is active. If not, it's an old socket to be cleaned up and can be
> > removed. If it is active, telemetry initialization fails and an error
> > message is printed out giving instructions on how to remove the error;
> > either by using file-prefix to have a different runtime dir (and
> > therefore socket path) or by disabling telemetry if it not needed.
> > 
> telemetry is enabled by default but it may not be used by the application.
> Hitting this issue will cause rte_eal_init() to fail which will probably
> stop or severely limit the application.
> So it could change a working application to a non-working one (albeit one
> that doesn't interfere with other process' sockets).
> Can it just print a warning that telemetry will not be enabled and continue
> so it's not returning an rte_eal_init failure?

For a backported fix, yes, that would probably be better behaviour, but for
the latest branch, I think returning error and having the user explicitly
choose the resolution they want to occur is best. I'll see about doing a
separate backport patch for 20.11.

> A more minor thing, I see it changes the behaviour from, last one runs with
> telemetry, to, first one runs with telemetry. Though it can be figured from
> the commit message, it might be worth calling that change out explicitly.

Sure. I'll resubmit a new version of this without stable CC'ed and include
that behaviour change explicitly in the commit log.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-29 13:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-15 14:10 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] " Bruce Richardson
2021-09-22  8:43 ` Power, Ciara
2021-09-24 16:18 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Bruce Richardson
2021-09-29  8:50   ` Power, Ciara
2021-09-29 12:28   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Kevin Traynor
2021-09-29 13:32     ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2021-09-29 13:51       ` Bruce Richardson
2021-09-29 14:54       ` Kevin Traynor
2021-09-29 15:24         ` Bruce Richardson
2021-09-29 15:31           ` Bruce Richardson
2021-09-29 16:01             ` Kevin Traynor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YVRq0ru/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).