> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:42 AM > 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!
Another point to keep in mind is backwards compatibility; think about various testing frameworks that currently do not use -d for mempool. They will all break if we require a -d /path/to/mempool.so argument. +1 for linking it automatically
