On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:54:48PM +0100, Kevin Traynor wrote: > On 29/09/2021 14:32, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:28:53PM +0100, Kevin Traynor wrote: > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > On 24/09/2021 17:18, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > When DPDK is run with --in-memory mode, multiple processes can run > > > > simultaneously using the same runtime dir. This leads to each process > > > > removing another process' telemetry socket as it started up, giving > > > > unexpected behaviour. > > > > > > > > This patch changes that behaviour to first check if the existing socket > > > > is active. If not, it's an old socket to be cleaned up and can be > > > > removed. If it is active, telemetry initialization fails and an error > > > > message is printed out giving instructions on how to remove the error; > > > > either by using file-prefix to have a different runtime dir (and > > > > therefore socket path) or by disabling telemetry if it not needed. > > > > > > > > > > telemetry is enabled by default but it may not be used by the application. > > > Hitting this issue will cause rte_eal_init() to fail which will probably > > > stop or severely limit the application. > > > > > > So it could change a working application to a non-working one (albeit one > > > that doesn't interfere with other process' sockets). > > > > > > Can it just print a warning that telemetry will not be enabled and > > > continue > > > so it's not returning an rte_eal_init failure? > > > > > > > For a backported fix, yes, that would probably be better behaviour, but for > > the latest branch, I think returning error and having the user explicitly > > choose the resolution they want to occur is best. I'll see about doing a > > separate backport patch for 20.11. > > > > But this is a runtime message dependent on runtime environment. The user may > not have access or know how to change eal parameters.
True. But on the other hand, this problem only occurs with non-default EAL parameters anyway, so someone must have configured this with the --in-memory flag. > > In the case where the application doesn't care about telemetry, they have > gone from not having telemetry to rte_eal_init() failing, which probably has > severe consequence. > Yes, I agree, which I why I would suggest that for any backport of this fix, the error be made non-fatal as you suggest. [Having looked into it, having it as a non-fatal error is rather awkward, so it may be best just left unfixed and the current behaviour documented as known-issue]. However, for any application being updated and rebuilt against 21.11, I would have thought it reasonable to flag this as an error, as any such application would require revalidation anyway. > I could maybe agree if telemetry was default disable and the application had > set the --telemetry flag indicating that they want/need it. As it is, it > feels like it's possibly a worse outcome for the user. > Perhaps, but I believe the only case of there being an issue would be where: 1) a user who cannot modify the EAL parameters 2) runs an application which has been updated and rebuilt against 21.11 3) where that application is hard-coded to use in-memory mode and 4) has never been verified with two or more instances of that running? Or am I missing something here? Regards, /Bruce
