Hi, On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:31:56 +0200 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com> wrote:
> 2017-04-12 11:31, Richardson, Bruce: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shreyansh Jain [mailto:shreyansh.j...@nxp.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:02 PM > > > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com>; john miller > > > <john.mil...@atomicrules.com>; dev@dpdk.org; olivier.m...@6wind.com > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:12 PM > > > > To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com>; john miller > > > > <john.mil...@atomicrules.com>; dev@dpdk.org; olivier.m...@6wind.com > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:38:55AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:33:10AM +0000, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > > > > > My bad - I was too quick in replying - some clarification beneath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Shreyansh Jain > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:55 PM > > > > > > > To: 'Bruce Richardson' <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com>; john miller > > > > > > > <john.mil...@atomicrules.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > > > olivier.m...@6wind.com > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:35 PM > > > > > > > > To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com>; john miller > > > > > > > > <john.mil...@atomicrules.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > > > > > > olivier.m...@6wind.com > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 04:52:47AM +0000, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:58 AM > > > > > > > > > > To: john miller <john.mil...@atomicrules.com> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; olivier.m...@6wind.com; Shreyansh Jain > > > > > > > > > > <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] error in testpmd when > > > > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-11 14:02, john miller: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are seeing an issue when running from the head of the > > > > > > > > > > > master > > > > > > > branch > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > dpdk-next-net and building with > > > CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y. > > > > When > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > testpmd using -d to point to our PMD we get this error > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EAL: Error - exiting with code: 1 > > > > > > > > > > > Cause: Creation of mbuf pool for socket 0 failed: > > > > > > > > > > > Invalid > > > > argument > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This error occurs as a result of the rte mempool ops > > > > > > > > > > > table > > > > having 0 > > > > > > > > > > entries. This table is populated from a call to > > > > > > > > rte_mempool_register_ops(). > > > > > > > > > > This function gets called in rte_mempool_ring.c via the > > > > > > > > > > static > > > > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > > > MACRO MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS and exists in > > > librte_mempool_ring.so. > > > > > > > However > > > > > > > > > > this library is not loaded when the rte_eal_init() gets > > > > > > > > > > called so > > > > the > > > > > > > > static > > > > > > > > > > initializers are not yet loaded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am requesting advice on the proper way to repair this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "-d" the ring library (rte_mempool_ring) - just like any > > > > > > > > > other > > > > shared > > > > > > > lib. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a bug that should be fixed. The user should > > > > > > > > not need > > > > to > > > > > > > > have to specify a mempool driver just to get testpmd working, > > > > > > > > so I > > > > think > > > > > > > > the ring handler as default should be compiled in > > > > > > > > automatically so as > > > > to > > > > > > > > allow regular mempools to just work as before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For Ring Mempool as default enabled, +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, Ring mempool is enabled by default. But, obviously for > > > > > > shared > > > > library case, this still means "-d". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. That only applies if we don't explicitly link it > > > > > like the other shared libraries. We "special-case" our drivers in > > > > > that we don't add them with a -l flag, but expect the user to > > > > > dynamically load them at runtime. This is one case where I think all > > > > > apps should explicitly link against the ring mempool driver. There > > > > > is no reason we can't make some drivers mandatory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This change was done recently to move ring handler into its > > > > separate > > > > > > > > drivers/mempool/ring directory. That also means it no longer > > > > > > > > is > > > > compiled > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > the librte_mempool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should just add a better error message if no mempool > > > > > > > > > > driver is > > > > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is something to be improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This should be fixed by always having a mempool driver > > > installed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably, as ring mempool is a driver and compiled in shared mode, > > > > enabled by default will not fix this. > > > > > > > > > > But linked in by default will fix it. > > > > > > > > > And as follow-up to my own mail, I think we can actually go further > > > > here. Mempool is a core library, and very little can be done in DPDK > > > > without it. It's also not what most people would think as needing a > > > > driver loaded, so from a usability point of view, I don't see why we > > > > shouldn't link in all mempool drivers by default, like we do other libs. > > > > It will make users life easier, and I can't see any downside to doing > > > > so - they are just .so's after all! > > > > > > I don't have a particularly strong opinion against this. > > > For static build, we are already 'there' - mempool would be linked in with > > > testpmd. > > > For Shared library, the idea is to have small footprint and leave it to > > > user to link what is required, and what is not. > > > > > > Still, for usability sakes, we have three options: > > > 1. Link all library - which might be more than just ring (stack, more to > > > be added soon...) 2. Only link ring by default - because that is also > > > being used as default option when creating the mempool (ring_mp_mc) 3. > > > Don't link any > > > > > > (3) is a cleaner approach, but may not be a good usecase. But, going by > > > (1) would mean linking in unused mempool handler by default (yes, user > > > could always say 'n' in config file). > > > > > > So, if we are going to select the mempool as inbuild, we might as well > > > have it only for Ring (2). > > > > > > It's more important to make DPDK useful than to make it idealistic. :) > > > > > > > I'm ok with option 2 or 3. > > I think the default mempool could be linked. > I don't know how easy it is to transform > CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS="ring_mp_mc" > into > -lrte_mempool_ring > > Anyone for a patch? This is the default mempool for the mbufs, selected when using the function rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(). For non-mbuf mempools, the default is to use the ring handler (see in rte_mempool_create()). So if we want option 2-, it looks that moving this line in rte.app.mk above, outside the if (shared build), would do the job: _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_DRIVER_MEMPOOL_RING) += -lrte_mempool_ring I think both 2- and 3- are acceptable. People using the shared library mode should already provide all the .so in a known location, so that they are loaded by default. This is needed for the PMDs for instance. Olivier
