From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-f178.google.com (mail-yb1-f178.google.com [209.85.219.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA02D37AF for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:50:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yb1-f178.google.com with SMTP id f125so1126092ybc.0 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 09:50:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IsoQVDriGilwfT1jfDPyJHv4++QzW6Joz9UvdFw/4BY=; b=f+3pVnw+6rKhofLoZbK44ZbZY8Y1Fw2RcALT6ro4VF5kIGkNpfmieyYMdY2+A8c0wu aD3yPrGhdZHZ3j1Jkfk+S5P8s0UeXcZx5oyPtbGexAsUMPBg+33+3A7AZgFDTUw/o1Lv I20s94OVrRbxBtd8R3fBvUppHI9ZdWvWB4jMqZUT+kisnPVW+OSmbHsyOEZxK5GOWU5w JS+JShw1fQk0tkGDYpWirDhx4/mEu4STpAlsdLBlUZK42Y6XbT4DcZtsm2Yv4yyhcLYC mQ7edPVLOsm2vgaJeD24nl6pFIRw+daCT4bdFD9P7JThAQ4NhRIuWcN/tX9myJYvEoT1 BL7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IsoQVDriGilwfT1jfDPyJHv4++QzW6Joz9UvdFw/4BY=; b=g79oDtcUwtGftNaJmUUIOfuiquL/R5fOIqe1oeoyXNtFXTjPdbB2BoaaVSIyv60/Ts HFCgtpXhc1keoNuCzEoy2Z0Ek5JLM2eA9AACEex6S0Ey/3SWDRSKfiDeqccBKKbsxX8g ZTmEGGH/1bSvEkG6ygxkWH+5d80stTYqb9qSNoCBYE9RdLWhVWRR7eaysPZIsgdJ6jDp uGBhuA3QcziRFnwiIJemZH/8GuvjIzkwsK5d0wlpqUf9ivmn1C5PB/ZtCsFD4cXzWZpS z5BhAxRGfw7jonV6f3LuIbyuzemeOPkTkINCe0amxSZlRHwljFy79IXv3DNL6plS5hJJ iypw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbP0hXiomlfuYEb9+okQuysHrZNmKmXmgoB4vlOMOsgz77XdMmq 77dTWhDHGjcE6sMqPVtBVs2Q7o0gNrzK3HEZXwU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W7S0dQFz1zIKcOH/ArdmOD3Mw12g+/mixtIpXcuNhm8JK3gPN/bIU6wOvH8p/784b2/j5dtUHIEXw4JL6T2m0= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d4c6:: with SMTP id w189mr28830599ywd.254.1544118638053; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 09:50:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1544053277210.30241@kth.se> <1544084334026.77073@kth.se> <1544089058614.30952@kth.se> <1544097163543.88781@kth.se> <1544108032522.37391@kth.se> <1544110125447.14917@kth.se> <1544117277917.57532@kth.se> In-Reply-To: <1544117277917.57532@kth.se> From: Cliff Burdick Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:50:27 -0800 Message-ID: To: barbette@kth.se Cc: anatoly.burakov@intel.com, Shahaf Shuler , yskoh@mellanox.com, Raslan Darawsheh , thomas@monjalon.net, bernard.iremonger@intel.com, users Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Unregistered mempool in secondary X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 17:50:39 -0000 This problem happened to me, and the issue I had was you need to make sure all mempools, whether generated with rte_mempool_create, or pktmbuf_create are created in the primary process. Your secondary can then look up the name of them. If you try to create one of these in the secondary process, you will see the errors you had above. I ended up making sure all rte structures were created in my primary, and the secondary simply requested things to be created. This can be done using the IPC library. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:28 AM Tom Barbette wrote: > > except for the fact that you shouldn't run your secondary process with > the same coremask as primary (it will lead to mempool cache corruption, > among other things). > > If I don't touch any packet on the primary, this shouldn't cause any > problem, right? We want to use all of the CPU cores for processing. The > primary is only a controller. > > Tom