From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eal: clean up unused files on initialization Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 04:44:20 +0100 Message-ID: <2137402.5xZ7V9L5Yp@xps> References: <88cced4f601c44c6203b9adb09abacdce0b3a260.1542122595.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <821e4582-5594-d291-6047-d6e5ba7b120f@intel.com> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2BE984@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "stable@dpdk.org" , ferruh.yigit@intel.com To: "Varghese, Vipin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2BE984@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 14/11/2018 04:24, Varghese, Vipin: > Tested-by: Vipin Varghese > > > > > >> When creating process data structures, EAL will create many files in > > >> EAL runtime directory. Because we allow multiple secondary processes > > >> to run, each secondary process gets their own unique file. With many > > >> secondary processes running and exiting on the system, runtime > > >> directory will, over time, create enormous amounts of sockets, > > >> fbarray files and other stuff that just sits there unused because the > > >> process that allocated it has died a long time ago. This may lead to > > >> exhaustion of disk (or RAM) space in the runtime directory. > > >> > > >> Fix this by removing every unlocked file at initialization that > > >> matches either socket or fbarray naming convention. We cannot be sure > > >> of any other files, so we'll leave them alone. Also, remove similar > > >> code from mp socket code. > > >> > > >> We do it at the end of init, rather than at the beginning, because > > >> secondary process will use primary process' data structures even if > > >> the primary itself has died, and we don't want to remove those before > > >> we lock them. > > >> > > >> Bugzilla ID: 106 > > >> > > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > >> > > >> Reported-by: Vipin Varghese > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov > > Thanks Anatoly for the patch which clean-ups the tmpfs. This unblock the client from critical stopper too. > > > > > > > I feel it is too big and too late for 18.11. > > > Can we move it to 19.02? > > > > From maintainer's point of view, i agree that it's too risky to merge into 18.11 > > at this stage. My input should probably stop there, but Vipin (the original bug > > reporter) may have other thoughts on this matter. > > Hi Thomas, without the fix it affects both dpdk and non dpdk application use a host or VM. My suggestion to have the fix in and port to 18.11 LTS too. It is changing a behaviour. I propose to test it on 19.02 and backport it in 18.11.1. Any other opinion?