From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9482FA0545; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:00:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD8D4069C; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:00:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F1A40151 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:00:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28015C0151; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:00:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:00:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1655823623; x= 1655910023; bh=5rgNw4r22hziNMSlKZsYwjvmFvyhlW6rf1z32xJbsrU=; b=d jcPt/Vd8blV9qjCi8xcMbPQvCkfO0r+jc0gOYb9JJdy3eX4m04e6ihKfBhs4XWxn ZfkqVo1G8ssILtWpCsgsVpjHMwH/9Zbj3hcj6IRwbgbRELODvUhsTayiakheisme +KIaKCtETqojPzun3lk3/gUoBmV3IBH5uxea/kyXfHiO0AoZ96YNONT4zxHt80KC xB/oXZB/2FaNpeoEvpFn0/td9Ql3uVoGgZqlv5hdYOGCnHl6OBx0QIFv0Vbdid/b abiyyqiCQv66eV3bZkdUOBvvGaE6QLD2xlfn5ZJ69s95hM6FelJFFeFrdiDSSndn lyn+6FtwvCNtMV4AkUiCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1655823623; x= 1655910023; bh=5rgNw4r22hziNMSlKZsYwjvmFvyhlW6rf1z32xJbsrU=; b=T k3iJx9x8SwXtwHkYMoXYIKV0BwuGLgEq3+wwrhcotrOAMiY7XHnwxxM2dqRG/WL+ da7+Zauu44ZlAvXQVg0xMz+lxRIx65T9aSpaUABxb1cohsg1Jm7G97bRPSNWDH54 rujruBDDHzmNVVwsZXZ5rEmoXtkYq7KJaSTyzSa6hPTrcGlUTRu9f0cpvkY7FzqH yzlfYRP2bQyIDGfCbs+57D3hXYl3FaoU9P/pkea0L+VVfwM8zmbP8mnmkPBYXZGA R5jVhIU0ux/15ceSDBEZ09mmy7R3E0HMALJbVcABdhhd3Rtp1Z90bJyTxzQR6uIT FTrFUknI/txlv8bSpOpVg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudeffedgkedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtjeeiieefhedtfffgvdelteeufeefheeujefgueetfedttdei kefgkeduhedtgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:00:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , Dmitry Kozlyuk , David Marchand , Don Wallwork Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger , Chengwen Feng , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Bruce Richardson , Honnappa Nagarahalli , nd , "Wang, Haiyue" , Kathleen.Capella@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] eal: allow worker lcore stacks to be allocated from hugepage memory Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: <13664031.VsHLxoZxqI@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220502141058.12707-1-donw@xsightlabs.com> <6401977.6fTUFtlzNn@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 21/06/2022 16:52, Don Wallwork: > On 6/21/2022 10:42 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 21/06/2022 14:31, Don Wallwork: > >> On 6/21/2022 6:37 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 20/06/2022 10:35, David Marchand: > >>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 9:52 PM Don Wallwork wrote: > >>>>> Add support for using hugepages for worker lcore stack memory. The > >>>>> intent is to improve performance by reducing stack memory related TLB > >>>>> misses and also by using memory local to the NUMA node of each lcore. > >>>>> EAL option '--huge-worker-stack [stack-size-in-kbytes]' is added to allow > >>>>> the feature to be enabled at runtime. If the size is not specified, > >>>>> the system pthread stack size will be used. > >>>> - About the name of the option... I don't have a better name. > >>>> > >>>> Just want to highlight, that what this patch does is use the DPDK > >>>> memory allocator for the stack memory. > >>>> It happens that DPDK memory allocator is primarily used with > >>>> hugepages, but this is not systematic for example with the "no-huge" > >>>> mode of the DPDK memory allocator. > >>>> > >>>> IOW, in this patch current form, you can still run as: > >>>> > >>>> # dpdk-testpmd -c 3 --no-huge --huge-worker-stack=16 -m 40 -- etc... > >>>> > >>>> Opinions? > >>> The name of the option should not include "huge". > >>> What about "--worker-stack" ? > >>> If disabled (equal zero), the workers should use the default stack memory. > >>> > >>> > >> Wouldn't that have the potential to create confusion? The point of this > >> change is to allocate worker stacks from hugepages. Removing huge > >> from the option name could give the impression that the command is > >> simply to control worker stack size. > > It means if we control the worker stack size with a DPDK option, > > DPDK memory will be used. > > But we cannot force hugepage with this option. > > Hugepage is not always available and it can be disabled in DPDK. > > The command could be rejected if hugepages are not available. > That's not in the patch currently, but can be added. David, Anatoly, Dmitry, what do you think?