From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5069D1FE for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:27:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h15so2849813igd.8 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 02:32:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=X2XczcEuWmw6O9U7yqNJdtQbL+pFaaL2BXSYGX2eu9o=; b=GnZ691ne6UZOCn49SeOqa1wlx1WQCdaQLOuHalzrw8qZbjgnYB9sS8Jrq57RIxTVlZ er/5xK+CPRCux8AXbBEgsXwAmO3STA590FbzvC4Ubk2cwmVX1tyV0f1u5VpPr5WmhFrP LGft2As5sApdQ/M5emoJWnHSb/7ETRYLMPAnfzqbGw0ScK6fZcs/DaL/TphE3HzlJirv neiW35l8M1HFvhvehGmat0FTn0/TFBcl3xkerQlUCv6efajlm3xUrinUV1AhdslcsDGm IY++URaeM3c2QSMD8HN55z/02xMWF0aJ2dcKNRkM4Iaevyx6kNXUnt2ooii25y1y6eZF qgww== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZm1CAg8Ja+VV0nlvXszrzDKstgZHSGMsQTPXCLU56Pq74ONsJZQ81K2upKsgPyClnnHBF X-Received: by 10.70.44.138 with SMTP id e10mr2312264pdm.22.1409909530876; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.129.101] (napt.igel.co.jp. [219.106.231.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i9sm1296790pbq.17.2014.09.05.02.32.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Sep 2014 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54098315.6080107@igel.co.jp> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:32:05 +0900 From: "Tetsuya.Mukawa" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Zhangkun (K)" References: <0FCB215400789046A95ECE23C3E46C515F958EDB@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0FCB215400789046A95ECE23C3E46C515F958EFE@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <0FCB215400789046A95ECE23C3E46C515F958EFE@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Are there considerations about resource recycling by the process, not by the OS? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 09:27:29 -0000 Hi Zhangkun, Do you talk about resource management of DPDK when a process is finished?= If so, I guess DPDK doesn't care so much about freeing resources once allocated by the process. For example, there is no function to free a mempool. Thanks, Tetsuya (2014/09/05 12:39), Zhangkun (K) wrote: > Hi, > Yes, the program is running as root. > I want to know if or not the DPDK Community considers about resourc= e recycling. > > From: Masaru Oki [mailto:m-oki@stratosphere.co.jp] > Date: 2014=E5=B9=B49=E6=9C=885=E6=97=A5 11:18 > To: Zhangkun (K) > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Are there considerations about resource recycli= ng by the process, not by the OS? > > Hi, > > you may try > $ gdb your_program > gdb> b rte_panic > gdb> run > stopped at rte_panic > gdb> bt > > sorry, it is not answer for your question. > by the way, do you run the program as root? > > > 2014-09-05 12:07 GMT+09:00 Zhangkun (K) >: > Hi, > I develop the program with the use of dpdk and the process is core d= ump when the program is started. > The process is crash in case of initing memory failed and calling rte_p= anic function. > I search all rte_panic function in the dpdk, and find it so many. Ther= efore, in case the pr ocess happen fail, > it will abort. The resource allocated before is not released by the pro= cess, but by the OS system. > So I have a question: Are there considerations about resource recycling= by the process, not by the OS ? >