From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] If shared libraries are used vdev doesn't work anymore Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 11:32:56 +0200 Message-ID: <3107053.nrimOLvoz2@xps> References: <9fb283ed-223d-713e-4722-21278f4cfd6e@ng4t.com> <2197043.BsW04uu1lT@xps> <20170801081759.GO11154@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Dirk-Holger Lenz , users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170801081759.GO11154@bidouze.vm.6wind.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" 01/08/2017 10:17, Ga=EBtan Rivet: > Hi, >=20 > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:23:50PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 31/07/2017 16:58, Dirk-Holger Lenz: > > > If dpdk is built with 'CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=3Dy' then > > > using the vdev feature (args: e.g. -c 3 -n 4 --vdev=3D"crypto_openssl= ") > > > the rte_eal_init() returns 'ERROR: failed to parse device "crypto_ope= nssl"'. > > > It looks to me that rte_eal_devargs_add() calling rte_eal_devargs_par= se() > > > is trying to check the device name before the shared libraries are re= ad > > > and the internal data arrays are setup. > >=20 > > Yes, you're right: eal_parse_args() is called before eal_plugins_init(). > > The fix is not small: we should split the args parsing to parse the > > device arguments after loading shared libraries. > >=20 > > It is a release blocker. >=20 > I saw that yesterday, tried to investigate a bit. > I have currently an issue when launching testpmd when > BUILD_SHARED_LIB=3Dy. Mbufs fail to be allocated. I was not able to find > the root cause for this. Have you loaded the mempool driver? > Anyway, I guess there are two possible solutions: >=20 > - Delayed device validation > - Earlier plugins init >=20 > Thomas you seem to propose the first one, I agree that it will probably > be a little involved to implement but I guess it's feasible in time. > However, I don't yet understand why the second one is not possible from > the get-go. It makes sense in any case that the system should be > stabilized as soon as possible - i.e. that underlying subsystems such as > plugins and capabilities are loaded first to expose a stable set of > capabilities to any subsequent initializations. The problem is that the plugins initialization depends on tailqs, log and memory initialization. > So, I will lack time to investigate the issue with testpmd and shared > libs. If anyone has any idea, I will gladly hear it. In the meantime, I > will test those two solutions, see what would be feasible, and try to > propose one shortly. Thank you