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: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:57:59 +0100 Message-ID: <2394199.rkv9bdJ101@xps> References: <88cced4f601c44c6203b9adb09abacdce0b3a260.1542122595.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <7096e585fd36399cea92dd32fe1f19b051697bec.1542124270.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , vipin.varghese@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org To: Anatoly Burakov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7096e585fd36399cea92dd32fe1f19b051697bec.1542124270.git.anatoly.burakov@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" 13/11/2018 16:54, Anatoly Burakov: > 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 I feel it is too big and too late for 18.11. Can we move it to 19.02?