From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290F81B04C for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:05:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from lfbn-lil-1-702-109.w81-254.abo.wanadoo.fr ([81.254.39.109] helo=droids-corp.org) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1exyEK-00074D-AD; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:05:53 +0100 Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:05:19 +0100 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:05:19 +0100 From: Olivier Matz To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20180319170519.hyxbdjbr3nral6ho@platinum> References: <1520696382-16400-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <1520696382-16400-4-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <72792bc9-8e64-9a18-ce6c-ffd6777f1748@solarflare.com> <216ac4e5-2815-de23-4185-fd28210c0477@intel.com> <7873dc42-d58f-7dd2-abe0-3eac3ee5ebfb@solarflare.com> <7e266ed5-862f-8ecb-d80d-c26c7a7e4e4c@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/9] mempool: remove callback to get capabilities 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:05:24 -0000 Hi, On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:44:34PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: [...] > > > Aha, you're saying that virtual-contiguous and IOVA-contiguous > > > requirements are different things that it could be usecases where > > > virtual contiguous is important but IOVA-contiguos is not required. > > > It is perfectly fine. > > > As I understand IOVA-contiguous (physical) typically means > > > virtual-contiguous as well. Requirements to have everything > > > virtually contiguous and some blocks physically contiguous are > > > unlikely. So, it may be reduced to either virtual or physical > > > contiguous. If mempool does not care about physical contiguous at > > > all, MEMPOOL_F_NO_PHYS_CONTIG flag should be used and min_chunk_size > > > should mean virtual contiguous requirements. If mempool requires > > > physical contiguous objects, there is *no* MEMPOOL_F_NO_PHYS_CONTIG > > > flag and min_chunk_size means physical contiguous requirements. Just as a side note, from what I understood, having VA="contiguous" and IOVA="don't care" would be helpful for mbuf pools with mellanox drivers because perform better in that case.