On 13-Sep-21 2:36 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:14:55PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 13-Sep-21 12:06 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
Only a single DPDK process on the system can be using the /dev/contigmem
mappings at a time, but this was never explicitly enforced, e.g. when
using --in-memory flag on two processes. To prevent possible conflict
issues, we lock the dev node when it's in use, preventing other DPDK
processes from starting up and causing problems for us.
Fixes: 764bf26873b9 ("add FreeBSD support")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
---
lib/eal/freebsd/eal_hugepage_info.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/eal/freebsd/eal_hugepage_info.c
b/lib/eal/freebsd/eal_hugepage_info.c
index 408f054f7a..4a8d87c23e 100644
--- a/lib/eal/freebsd/eal_hugepage_info.c
+++ b/lib/eal/freebsd/eal_hugepage_info.c
@@ -90,6 +90,10 @@ eal_hugepage_info_init(void)
RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "could not open "CONTIGMEM_DEV"\n");
return -1;
}
+ if (flock(fd, LOCK_EX) < 0) {
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "could not lock memory. Is another DPDK process
running?\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
if (buffer_size >= 1<<30)
RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "Contigmem driver has %d buffers, each of size
%dGB\n",
This only gets triggered when regular init path is chosen, i.e. --no-huge
still works.
Yes, but that is ok, I think, since no-huge doesn't use these resources or
suffer from this problem. On the other hand, except for running unit tests,
no-huge mode is pretty useless on FreeBSD as we don't have any
vfio-equivalent support, so all HW access has to use physical addresses
which can only be got using contigmem.
What i meant to say was, i've checked this against '--no-huge' which
*should* still work with this patch, and it does :) So, the phrasing was
unfortunate, but we agree!
I'm a bit uneasy with --in-memory mode pretending to work on
FreeBSD and Windows, but that's a separate problem :)
Yes, it is, though one that does belong is the same area as this one. The
"fix" is probably to just print a warning when --in-memory is used,
informing the user that the flag is ignored and then continue.
Alternatively we can error out, but I think the warn+continue is better,
myself.
I think erroring out is better. The feature is intended to work a
certain way, so if we can't guarantee that it does, we can't pretend it
is "supported" or "is working". But again, irrelevant to this patch :)
As far as the patch
goes, the problem it addresses does get fixed.
Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
Thanks.
/Bruce
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
