From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265F2A00C2 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 11:14:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED03840DFD; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 11:14:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oi1-f171.google.com (mail-oi1-f171.google.com [209.85.167.171]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4DD40DDE for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 11:14:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oi1-f171.google.com with SMTP id o184so18907099oif.13 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=sVvx6F7EPww8TS7Ig4cgOvLwjsTqFTSnfhbWcwmzVgU=; b=hXYNyPrrhJK6FLXYgk9Y2SKTRZHT6apvU/LOAoC942dVAmijSDl+zlr9ulDK5e2Az4 iDOp8JPBOGzb+4jjse4RsM+zucMGUdKHlwwcA6cE3Lpbpo2+JFl+D/Ltpk88a4ojSUmD Hd1tMAhef6lQ6gh/12RxFn9j3EghVF5gTD+IBnwFXjWl1ComvOIN8okM/luuwCzb8JEe 6fFWLs+O865Ec6T2aDPdNOAgNDb4o6pXCG4YeYtR2wfKkEwiOgvFAUEVwmrTO4cJ/KH1 v/2e+F8Xi425vQGjhIaL43tqHnTgUwL2b+c97PV+v0emYOZ8aJOunSfnPH4ux7PePlZ4 QWOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=sVvx6F7EPww8TS7Ig4cgOvLwjsTqFTSnfhbWcwmzVgU=; b=u/CIYTJxbkRfWBHsxCsYbhSnv0Erc01XjQKzLSuUvB+1Qj2I0t5tgyQbWxVmr32Lxr ZgsLEjz47FNuAbvyZqDSnW63DYIXomgVjpy5S6UjZczCpcnIK7kxdFGnUT6eQ4PvoZq2 J/9nhsj9QwgFsVpKAUgntc8fT/Y7N/ck6EAzD7z4MtwQHiaotQxm39gytVpejYGTU68b vrZBtjsWIkRVpP96OuIlGKu04XuzmaKbtrjTyRiyLgb5jgV7mtakteXyyRx7A0dovtw0 IRwqsUIhTT9w6QJP/BTenXI1qdHs8p6s284G9sJwpQ4Hsi+ElhcW+CPUnA4LXCPlG78b AA4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1uQMnGPC2q9CHlXEKEN3k8sNSLv2bEEJOha0Jhj/CYkplvXgvo fQNpNmDdXE3vlXpSjrgYvL5v5bM/N6mHEK8LmCOPmDm8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR61KIZ4g2ZbQbEJ3TDIJs2HFoEFibICAWL8wRiniKxzmayOJFWxjepQxe2i0OoaRj8em6H7u0N54Palijpvsvc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1a13:b0:344:d744:5950 with SMTP id bk19-20020a0568081a1300b00344d7445950mr2784632oib.243.1661332460196; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Antonio Di Bacco Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 11:14:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Secondary process stuck in rte_eal_memory_init To: Anna Tauzzi Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Can you try launching the secondary with some delay in order not to overlap with memory allocations done in the primary? Is your primary allocating memory on NUMA 0 where the secondary is running? On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:54 PM Anna Tauzzi wrote: > > I have a primary process that spawns a secondary process.Primary is on NUMA 1 while secondary on NUMA 0. > The secondary process starts up but when calling rte_eal_init it gets stuck with this backtrace: > > flock() > sync_walk() > rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe() > eal_memalloc_sync_with_primary() > rte_eal_hugepage_attach() > rte_eal_memory_init() > rte_eal_init.cold() > > While starting the secondary, it is possible that the primary is allocating memory on different NUMAs. I'm saying this because if in the primary I replace the dpdk memory allocation function (rte_zalloc...) with a plain memalign I don't get this problem. > > >