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 at unina.it WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/walter.dedonato 2013/10/4 Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen > > Hemminger > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 5:39 PM > > To: Walter de Donato > > Cc: dev at 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 at 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. > > > >
