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 D2961A0524; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:30:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB682405D1; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:30:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964E92405CE for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:30:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB36E95; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 07:30:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:30:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= F4dyhsKZTIU4ZYuL4YkmO4DPtT+4xNbObGmsOnr2468=; b=0mu8/7X7KrxtDNpJ c7IESl7YEZGzfTbTrgHPfgrF8C73JD/h/KRvoLS6aHUgi9fPyXsMI/IoxU7n0eCk rZCqzVW3BPmPadQ9uAZf7Te6fCqHkC/ImwgatyQ5I43g/pyk2vVqBhpTVMi5AKur cAESPZWH9iy2CTv+Cgipv8RBL5bBvbiShRMV+riZp2TQRNGYjtPtBAMmVf/0rXPf G5LFH3rE9YlofdCzREKAUan33h7ArqnHpz7y2bqBERfvGC7QIY0b3WxiiLVAhxpL 8TsgMsfws8SJ+ZQ9AP4BLvmf1NAKHRIQhD48k2SJIrkPQIJiPnQthEsJMQX9jdlP IJcQfQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=F4dyhsKZTIU4ZYuL4YkmO4DPtT+4xNbObGmsOnr24 68=; b=aUKpoysL8OUfV+91Sh7PO52TciiEkO4XIjHkq3TGfhYY2DHxQ6faRe6d6 H0fzoFCgOMIMvOaYGYKDHwkjreUa3q9fbuknSU7oSSwxaMuO45r9jxcNmFS0fCG6 //NzMFSDZcc/AJnBhhLSu/BjHTt1ZqKCuUmvYuJoLVZo4FQGwc9eCndxMNA7wLwK Po21/BUAc04R2cFEercPbFWMrxaNGxa9gd4W9lEvqFUZHsCLYEkRss+y59FaX7ck /6tBTMuuVD73TXR9Ma5JG6TMa9Qugi6eEj1XRgwIOXTnw5X5DUNwoINLIO2GJho2 YcMhiYJKC53xneJpO3YXEkYmQHXig== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrgeeggdefvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeekteehtdeivefhieegjeelgedufeejheekkeetueevieeuvdevuedt jeevheevteenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7396A108005F; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 07:30:05 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: oulijun Cc: Ferruh Yigit , dev , linuxarm@openeuler.org, david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 13:30:03 +0100 Message-ID: <2729474.eb1HxJgzsv@thomas> In-Reply-To: <0aacfa1e-2191-c196-ac73-fad99c016aec@huawei.com> References: <8270022.kECihOmdav@thomas> <0aacfa1e-2191-c196-ac73-fad99c016aec@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] =?utf-8?q?=E3=80=90Some_Questions_About_Multi-Process?= =?utf-8?q?_Resource_Cleaning=E3=80=91?= X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 04/02/2021 12:47, oulijun: >=20 > =E5=9C=A8 2021/2/4 17:25, Thomas Monjalon =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > > Hi, > > > > Sorry your questions are quite confused. > > Please start explaining what is the problem you are trying to solve. > Start the master and slave processes at the same time, and then run the=20 > kill -9 command to kill the slave processes. No, If you kill -9 (SIGKILL), the process aborts immediatly. > The slave process should call rte_eal_cleanup to release resources. But=20 > I find that there is no release from the process, > and I think there is a resource leak. Try other signals than SIGKILL. My understanding is that SIGKILL can simulate a crash in the process. How to handle such case is to be defined per driver/library. > > In general, closing a process does not mean removing the device, > > because it can be used by other processes. > > > > > > 04/02/2021 07:56, oulijun: > >> Hi, Thomas Monjalon&Ferruh Yigit and others > >> > >> I'm analyzing multiprocess with eal. I have some questions I'd l= ike > >> to ask you. > >> > >> Firstly, After the rte_eal_init() command is executed, the master and > >> slave processes are started successfully. > >> > >> and traffic is continuously sent using the tester.If you run the kill = =2D9 > >> command to stop the slave process, restart the re-process, and start > >> packet receiving and sending, > >> > >> how to ensure that the eal resource of the slave process is cleaned up? > >> > >> Second, how to invoke the remove function to clear probe resources of > >> the slave process after the slave process exits? > >> > >> Finally, I found out why the rte_eal_cleanup call was not unregistered > >> mp action after the process exited. > >> > >> I look forward to your response. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Lijun Ou