Re: [dpdk-dev] Multi-process on the same host

[Walter de Donato <walter.dedonato@unina.it>]

Thanks a lot Bruce,

I started looking at the multi-process examples - where this case is not
considered - and I missed that section in the programmer's guide.

Regards,
-Walter

Walter de Donato, Ph.D.
PostDoc @ Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies
University of Napoli Federico II
Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy)
Phone: +39 081 76 83821 - Fax: +39 081 76 83816
Email: walter.dedonato@unina.it
WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/walter.dedonato


2013/10/4 Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen
> > Hemminger
> > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 5:39 PM
> > To: Walter de Donato
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Multi-process on the same host
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:47:02 +0200
> > Walter de Donato <walter.dedonato@unina.it> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've been using DPDK for a while and now I encountered the following
> > issue:
> > > when I try to run two primary processes on the same host (with
> > > --no-shconf option enabled) respectively sending packets on one port
> > > and receiving them on a different port (the two ports are directly
> > > connected with a CAT-6 cable), I get this error on the receiving
> process:
> > >
> > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > > 0x00000000004158a0 in rte_eth_rx_burst (port_id=0 '\000',
> > queue_id=0,
> > > rx_pkts=0x7ffff5baa8f0, nb_pkts=128) at
> > > /home/devel/dpdk/build/include/rte_ethdev.h:1658
> > > 1658            return (*dev->rx_pkt_burst)(dev->data-
> > >rx_queues[queue_id],
> > > rx_pkts, nb_pkts);
> > >
> > > To give some more details:
> > > - the options given to the two processes:
> > >   ./receiver -c 0x3 -n 2 -m 200 --no-shconf -- -p 0x1
> > >   ./sender -c 0xc -n 2 -m 200 --no-shconf -- -p 0x2
> > >   where the -p option is the binary mask to select the ports to enable.
> > > - the network card is a dualport Intel X540:
> > >   port 0: Intel Corporation Ethernet Controller 10 Gigabit X540-AT2
> (rev
> > 01)
> > >   port 1: Intel Corporation Ethernet Controller 10 Gigabit X540-AT2
> > > (rev 01)
> > > - this is the hugeadm --pool-list output:
> > >       Size  Minimum  Current  Maximum  Default
> > >   1073741824        2        2        2        *
> > >
> > > My first question is: should it be possible to let separate primary
> > > processes coexist if they use different resources (cores, ports,
> > > memory pools)?
> > >
> > > A second question is: there is any other workaround to let this
> > > scenario work without merging the two processes into two lcores of the
> > same process?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > -Walter
> >
> > The problem is that huge TLB filesystem is a shared resource.
> > Because of that the memory pools of the two processes overlap, and
> > memory pools are used for packet buffers, malloc, etc.
> >
> > You might be able to use no-huge, but then other things would probably
> > break.
>
> The way to run two primary processes side by side is documented in the
> document "Intel(r) Data Plane Development Kit (Intel(r) DPDK): Programmer's
> Guide" available at:
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/intelligent-systems/intel-technology/intel-dpdk-programmers-guide.htmland is covered in section 17.2.3. You need to pass the "--file-prefix" flag
> when running your application to force the processes to use different
> hugepage files so they are not shared among the two processes.
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Shannon Limited
> Registered in Ireland
> Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare
> Registered Number: 308263
> Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the
> sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others
> is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>
>