From: Prashant Upadhyaya <prashant.upadhyaya@aricent.com>
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Query regarding multiple processes in DPDK
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:27:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C7CE7EEF248E2B48BBA63D0ABEEE700C45DFEF1B4E@GUREXMB01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01A977283@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi Bruce,
Thanks, this was very useful information.
Regards
-Prashant
-----Original Message-----
From: Richardson, Bruce [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 2:59 PM
To: Prashant Upadhyaya; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: Query regarding multiple processes in DPDK
If the primary process dies:
a) The memory does not go away, so the second process can still use it
b) When restarting the primary process, you should restart it as a secondary one, to ensure it reattaches to memory properly instead of trying to re-initialize it.
Regards
/Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prashant Upadhyaya [mailto:prashant.upadhyaya@aricent.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:08 AM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: Query regarding multiple processes in DPDK
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> One more question --
>
> Suppose the first instance comes up as primary and creates the mbuf
> pool and rings etc. [ok] Now, the second instance comes up as
> secondary and does the corresponding lookup functions [ok] Now the
> primary exits -- at this point can the secondary still run with all
> the memory to which it had done the lookup intact, or does the fact
> that primary died will lead to all the memory also taken away with it
> so that the secondary can no longer function now ?
>
> Regards
> -Prashant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Prashant
> Upadhyaya
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:16 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Query regarding multiple processes in DPDK
>
> Thanks Bruce, I think your suggested example of multi_process answers
> my questions.
>
> Regards
> -Prashant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Prashant
> Upadhyaya
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:10 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Query regarding multiple processes in DPDK
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regarding your comment --
> [BR] It will depend upon the application, but in most cases you
> probably want to have slightly different code paths for primary and
> secondary instances. For example, if a process is running as primary
> instance, it will probably call rte_mempool_create or rte_ring_create.
> A secondary instance which wants to use these should instead call
> rte_mempool_lookup and rte_ring_lookup instead.
> For an example of how to write the one binary to be used as both
> primary and secondary process, I suggest looking at the symmetric_mp
> example application in the examples/multi_process/ directory.
>
> I was really hoping that the --proc-type=auto, would make the DPDK
> libraries internally resolving all this stuff, is that not the case ?
> I have not started reading the code for all this yet.
> I must launch the same executable twice in my usecase. Even if the
> executable code has to make different calls when it comes up as
> secondary, is there a way for the usercode to know that it has really
> come up as secondary when the --proc-type=auto is used ?
>
> Regards
> -Prashant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:02 PM
> To: Prashant Upadhyaya; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: Query regarding multiple processes in DPDK
>
> Hi Prashant
>
> > ===
> > The EAL also supports an auto-detection mode (set by EAL
> > --proc-type=auto flag), whereby an Intel(r) DPDK process is started
> > as a secondary instance if a primary instance is already running.
> > ===
> >
> > So does this mean that if I have a DPDK exe foo.out, then when I run
> > the first instance of foo.out with -proc-type = auto, then foo.out
> > will run as a primary process and when I spawn the second instance
> > of foo.out (with first already running) again with -proc-type=auto,
> > then this second instance automatically becomes secondary ?
> [BR] Yes, that is the idea.
>
> >
> > Also is there any user code initialization change required or
> > exactly the same code will work for both the processes ?
> [BR] It will depend upon the application, but in most cases you
> probably want to have slightly different code paths for primary and
> secondary instances. For example, if a process is running as primary
> instance, it will probably call rte_mempool_create or rte_ring_create.
> A secondary instance which wants to use these should instead call
> rte_mempool_lookup and rte_ring_lookup instead.
> For an example of how to write the one binary to be used as both
> primary and secondary process, I suggest looking at the symmetric_mp
> example application in the examples/multi_process/ directory.
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
> =====================
> Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
> for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
> ==========================================================
> =====================
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
> =====================
> Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
> for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
> ==========================================================
> =====================
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
> =====================
> Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
> for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
> ==========================================================
> =====================
===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-25 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-22 12:50 Prashant Upadhyaya
2013-11-22 13:31 ` Richardson, Bruce
2013-11-22 13:40 ` Prashant Upadhyaya
2013-11-22 13:46 ` Prashant Upadhyaya
2013-11-25 4:08 ` Prashant Upadhyaya
2013-11-25 9:29 ` Richardson, Bruce
2013-11-25 13:57 ` Prashant Upadhyaya [this message]
2013-11-25 19:55 ` Jeff Venable, Sr.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=C7CE7EEF248E2B48BBA63D0ABEEE700C45DFEF1B4E@GUREXMB01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM \
--to=prashant.upadhyaya@aricent.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).