From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5712C28
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:13:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from lfbn-lil-1-182-75.w90-45.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.45.31.75]
 helo=droids-corp.org)
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1dwObt-0003U0-AL; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:19:26 +0200
Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:13:35 +0200
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:13:35 +0200
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: tom.barbette@ulg.ac.be
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20170925081333.wlvtceflipekcdme@platinum>
References: <371456982.11145391.1506007268500.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <371456982.11145391.1506007268500.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Cannot allocate mempool with --no-huge since DPDK
 16.07
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 08:13:43 -0000

Hi Tom,

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:21:08PM +0200, tom.barbette@ulg.ac.be wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I get a EINVAL since DPDK 16.07 when trying to allocate a mempool with rte_pktmbuf_pool_create. This is when I use --no-huge --vdev=eth_ring0. But this happens before accessing the virtual device in any ways.
> 
> Which, btw shows the documentation is wrong as it indicates : 
> EINVAL - cache size provided is too large, or priv_size is not aligned.
> Which is not the problem here (tried cache_size of 0, 64,256 and priv_size is 0). EINVAL can obviously come from elswhere.
> 
> Any idea? Something changed in involved subsystems since 16.07?

I first though your issue was related to this one:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-June/067678.html

But maybe it's just a memory issue. Can you try with less mbufs?
  testpmd --no-huge [...] -- --total-num-mbufs=4096 [...]

If that fixes the issue, I'll check if we can change the return
value to something clearer (ENOMEM?).

Thanks,
Olivier