From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-4.sys.kth.se (smtp-4.sys.kth.se [130.237.48.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD845F24 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-4.sys.kth.se (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-4.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CA7DEC; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se Received: from smtp-4.sys.kth.se ([127.0.0.1]) by smtp-4.sys.kth.se (smtp-4.sys.kth.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id e_bGAFzlyYEb; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from exdb01.ug.kth.se (unknown [192.168.32.111]) by smtp-4.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29CF848D; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:40 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kth.se; s=default; t=1544133224; bh=OVJhcv76eszvAji8G0yiTAgHTWWzVkEmZUwW2LUG0aA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=D+zi6tJSZMEExZ2dKk5ap6MS3HEVxaQfk+zVkvIZjHn/+8F1hyAnezqVmF+XAdbX9 qT4PppyOYe3rYVgXtVDCtO3MJjdbV1NiaRaqV4pgwftTdoiq6bO4YFHHuOC4dpvf+/ 4CWBArMGDFtkZ3ioxcsnAncSLfZYyKoL+zb+/eXs= Received: from exdb06.ug.kth.se (192.168.32.116) by exdb01.ug.kth.se (192.168.32.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:40 +0100 Received: from exdb05.ug.kth.se (192.168.32.115) by exdb06.ug.kth.se (192.168.32.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:39 +0100 Received: from exdb05.ug.kth.se ([192.168.32.115]) by exdb05.ug.kth.se ([192.168.32.115]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:53:40 +0100 From: Tom Barbette To: Cliff Burdick CC: "anatoly.burakov@intel.com" , Shahaf Shuler , "yskoh@mellanox.com" , "Raslan Darawsheh" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "bernard.iremonger@intel.com" , users Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] Unregistered mempool in secondary Thread-Index: AQHUjO2LmQco5PWHo0uingmMOU1mvKVxTSaggAAQ9qaAABImoIAAA8NagAAFlJCAAB/YhIAAIF8QgAAA6yCAAAT/QIAAEj+XgAAHsMCAAB3ltv//9iqAgABTytw= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:53:39 +0000 Message-ID: <1544133219632.13606@kth.se> References: <1544053277210.30241@kth.se> <1544084334026.77073@kth.se> <1544089058614.30952@kth.se> <1544097163543.88781@kth.se> <1544108032522.37391@kth.se> <1544110125447.14917@kth.se> <1544117277917.57532@kth.se>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, sv-SE, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [83.249.19.162] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Unregistered mempool in secondary X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 21:53:46 -0000 ?Thanks Cliff for your input. However I do not allocate anything after the = device has started. I only create two mempool, one per socket, and they are= both looked up fine in the secondary,. Moreover, my setup works without an= y problem when I use two ports on the same NUMA node/same physical PCIe NIC= card. Tom ________________________________ De : Cliff Burdick Envoy=E9 : jeudi 6 d=E9cembre 2018 18:50 =C0 : Tom Barbette Cc : anatoly.burakov@intel.com; Shahaf Shuler; yskoh@mellanox.com; Raslan D= arawsheh; thomas@monjalon.net; bernard.iremonger@intel.com; users Objet : Re: [dpdk-users] Unregistered mempool in secondary This problem happened to me, and the issue I had was you need to make sure = all mempools, whether generated with rte_mempool_create, or pktmbuf_create = are created in the primary process. Your secondary can then look up the nam= e of them. If you try to create one of these in the secondary process, you = will see the errors you had above. I ended up making sure all rte structure= s were created in my primary, and the secondary simply requested things to = be created. This can be done using the IPC library. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:28 AM Tom Barbette > wrote: > except for the fact that you shouldn't run your secondary process with th= e same coremask as primary (it will lead to mempool cache corruption, among= other things). If I don't touch any packet on the primary, this shouldn't cause any proble= m, right? We want to use all of the CPU cores for processing. The primary i= s only a controller. Tom