Re: Regarding DPDK API's like rte_timer_subsystem_init/rte_hash_create etc. in VPP

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 06:42:58PM +0530, Prashant Upadhyaya wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 2:50 PM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:57:52PM +0530, Prashant Upadhyaya wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> >
> > FYI, when replying on list, it's best not to top-post, but put your replies
> > below the email snippet you are replying to.
> >
> > > The hash creation API throws the following error --
> > > RING: Cannot reserve memory for tailq
> > > HASH: memory allocation failed
> > >
> > > The timer subsystem init api throws this error --
> > > EAL: memzone_reserve_aligned_thread_unsafe(): Number of requested
> > > memzone segments exceeds RTE_MAX_MEMZONE
> > >
> >
> > Can you try increasing RTE_MAX_MEMZONE. It' defined in DPDK's rte_config.h
> > file, so edit that and then rebuild DPDK. [If you are using the built-in
> > DPDK from VPP, you may need to do a patch for this, add it into the VPP
> > patches direction and then do a VPP rebuild.]
> >
> > Let's see if we can get rid of at least one of the error messages. :-)
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> > > I did check the code and apparently the memzone and rte zmalloc
> > > related api's are not being able to allocate memory.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > -Prashant
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:30 PM Bruce Richardson
> > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:30:24AM +0530, Prashant Upadhyaya wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > While trying to port some code to VPP (which uses DPDK as the backend
> > > > > driver), I am running into a problem that calls to API's like
> > > > > rte_timer_subsystem_init, rte_hash_create are failing while allocation
> > > > > of memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is presumably because VPP inits the EAL with the following arguments --
> > > > >
> > > > > -in-memory --no-telemetry --file-prefix vpp
> > > > >
> > > > > Is  there is something that can be done eg. passing some more parms in
> > > > > the EAL initialization which hopefully wouldn't break VPP but will
> > > > > also be friendly to the RTE timer and hash functions too, that would
> > > > > be great, so requesting some advice here.
> > > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > can you provide some more details on what the errors are that you are
> > > > receiving? Have you been able to dig a little deeper into what might be
> > > > causing the memory failures? The above flags alone are unlikely to cause
> > > > issues with hash or timer libraries, for example.
> > > >
> > > > /Bruce
> 
> Thanks Bruce, the error comes from the following function in
> lib/eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> memzone_reserve_aligned_thread_unsafe
> 
> The condition which spits out the error is the following
> if (arr->count >= arr->len)
> So I printed both of the above values inside this function, and the
> following output came
> 
> vpp[14728]: dpdk: EAL init args: --in-memory --no-telemetry --file-prefix vpp
> [New Thread 0x7fffa67b6700 (LWP 14732)]
> count: 0 len: 2560
> count: 1 len: 2560
> count: 2 len: 2560
> [New Thread 0x7fffa5fb5700 (LWP 14733)]
> [New Thread 0x7fffa5db4700 (LWP 14734)]
> count: 3 len: 2560
> count: 4 len: 2560
> ### this is the place where I call rte_timer_subsystem_init from my
> code, the above must be coming from any other code from VPP/EAL init,
> the line below is surely because of my call to
> rte_timer_subsystem_init
> count: 0 len: 0
> 
> So as you can see that both values are coming to be zero -- is this
> expected ? I thought the arr->len should have been non zero.
> I must add that the thread which is calling the
> rte_timer_subsystem_init is possibly different than the one which did
> the eal init, do you think that might be a problem...
> I am yet to increase the value of RTE_MAX_MEMZONE, but wanted to share
> the above first for any suggestions.
> 
Given the lengths you printed above, increasing the MAX_MEMZONE will not
help things. Is the init call which is failing coming from a non-DPDK
thread?