From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C37A0471 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874DB4C80; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com (new3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.229]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663BF1252 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F7111B9; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 06:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 06:01:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=z4ag/bz3KT63V5R2O1ZRRcTwzA1IwrTiWz9qKySKQ2o=; b=UNUKUS17nzcJ rqXaRKty6MU014/frfu77vnpZqEZDLyQzJs6fIB3YdIQVumXSKBwW2n6L/SC+bU9 PQhjCEd+KZs01gxV58wMPnAA+/uU9NdAb0ULxjwl3wK/tqJeAKnjSSNj5Ch+IocZ NbZA/bBEQZUWASLE6pl75hcBjwElthk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=z4ag/bz3KT63V5R2O1ZRRcTwzA1IwrTiWz9qKySKQ 2o=; b=djyrEJhmKpyj07yfwfJB5sjfFD/FelIFovMMwvDmBU3xk2XPyGqjwxxNk XThmRcEUnxCaacQn03eerYRNT/+o7I8LxzBYxt9g12qVx5Ujh3sknsDWcOOW77Ot WX0t3rc7BIr6EEmnj5dYgSN0sNZ5DqiORdwUrnwnWtp6srDDuX89x+rRr9kiAhCl OS2VidgEiulPPTXCQbrd86qKrDWYfw9W5DaQ/IjWou+ZEuLktFTOK3YuCyvs6u1b WK3niM52VEo8LMJ5DamSg5dRxQvjKTedfIkv6m/Dptssv9hDU6QdbDZt+xkcg6V9 uAoH3F8mMu+N0ised1Qc5fcmreXUQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddruddvgedgvdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B9F7D380088; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 06:01:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: David Marchand , Hemant Agrawal , Gagandeep Singh , dev , Olivier Matz , Andrew Rybchenko , Nipun Gupta , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Steve Capper , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Bruce Richardson , Gavin Hu , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , David Christensen Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1819286.Zbnkx0GmlD@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20190807101204.21614-1-g.singh@nxp.com> <525631f9-c367-336e-7caf-dbb886193fc6@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change max hugepage sizes to 4 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 12/08/2019 11:49, David Marchand: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:43 AM Burakov, Anatoly > wrote: > > On 08-Aug-19 8:31 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > I would suggest to restrict the change to Arm only with an ifdef, > > > in order to limit the risk for this release. > > > We can think about a dynamic hugepage scan in the next release. > > > > I don't see how this is necessary. The 3 is an arbitrary number here, > > and the ABI isn't broken as this is an internal structure. We could > > increase it to 16 for all i care, and it wouldn't make any difference to > > the rest of the code - we never populate more than we can find anyway. > > I agree on the principle. > But at the time this popped up, we were really close to the release. > It seemed a way to mitigate any unforeseen issue by limiting to the > platform that was affected. Exactly, we were extra cautious. Please increase the value for everybody, thanks.