From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.228.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E328FFA for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:50:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 444C1BE; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:50:34 -0700 From: Matthew Hall To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, Nikita Kozlov Message-ID: <20160922015034.GA10277@mhcomputing.net> References: <20160919212257.GA27713@mhcomputing.net> <3263960.cPWMKkvuZx@xps13> <20160921172905.GA7158@mhcomputing.net> <20160921164205.000645d8@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160921164205.000645d8@xeon-e3> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] LPM6 next hop size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:50:35 -0000 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:42:05PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > This was intentional because rte_malloc comes out of huge page area and that > resource is a critical resource. It could use rte_malloc() but that makes it > more likely to break when doing Policy Based routing or VRF. Can we get more clarity on why PBR or VRF would break it? The performance and fragmentation of the default glibc allocator are quite bad. So I am trying to avoid it in my app for example. Matthew.