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 2B609A034F; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D2D1D15E; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com (mail-lf1-f66.google.com [209.85.167.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AC91C24A for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a9so12903150lfb.8 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 01:42:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qxrbusaD1HGpuAuy8aB7LHQ5DbAOZj9gnTbXkb9zQiM=; b=kDpuFgpZXB2Ttu5gFsFqWzeJ21fFcDdtxt+fDkP+AGzF7YU+qhtuyvc1QNujsUN1Lx IY7Z9n6FNwO3U3nPLn3eXcN8M/Qw0vE+wlJSuCHBPlPnTjGn7GIdJq/dvHeun/2O9UL+ +/jYrplR2Y8z625lKfu99DYw2t1M4/uuB2Uo9R9k3aR61RfNXhUBIe7/T8k783R8BH0u Gi9G4lZCLArHTUqP0gxbqeh6QxwBclPzZDgPe9dPcJCXWBbRreAXL2NClBJsgIidZs7o 06HETJ869/zxj4DfYjvjUoVVKP+KAoPZREw+1CqlDUuw2PWScAlj+8JTSP+DdTAHGGfN Q+lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qxrbusaD1HGpuAuy8aB7LHQ5DbAOZj9gnTbXkb9zQiM=; b=SJFcHnfXd7zlDHlpkpo+IGnTD6Wgiv5UrPCAgvcqx4BiShXPAtMaN/AoDZa6/G6P2M VokJG7nATBJSO/0GP1gutb7EeQ9aeUt4uxUcCvJHGbE/WyI6Q66VdwBYysMkmbKyKpl8 +XtbVqz4U9FCJoAJVMzb4rXvsxPlEapQGzsQe8rv3/2+/Jt7nFkbnFxLsPEJNVDpArG6 bM2oMPWLefdCa8q+vaxCWSk6D34GbDgX1GcHeElO9LWMd/82uNXW3kg8GnoYUGnmpMOb xYhbsjVLszvyU+bEbW9z9rGg6liaDsB6f3Uoed7CZ26u/WLQEgAzV1J8XpT8xN/asA/C DJnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336s9rvoGgX5LCxaFaJRLtFuEZvv3H3v5syZINql863ii0Uq6ba oBcEvTvwvDfbv7vxx/yBCyc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUtNBdnykuVFd4FuENt9KG5nOqnO0gYAQ5yVjfCv4MmD+eDuyQ+LKWcGDIzVCImEpuycSToQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5290:: with SMTP id q16mr17140433lfm.108.1589359370163; Wed, 13 May 2020 01:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sovereign (broadband-37-110-65-23.ip.moscow.rt.ru. [37.110.65.23]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm4555763ljn.61.2020.05.13.01.42.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 May 2020 01:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 11:42:48 +0300 From: Dmitry Kozlyuk To: Fady Bader Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Dmitry Malloy (MESHCHANINOV)" , Narcisa Ana Maria Vasile , Tal Shnaiderman , Thomas Monjalon , Harini Ramakrishnan , Omar Cardona , Pallavi Kadam , Ranjit Menon , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , Anatoly Burakov Message-ID: <20200513114248.6183d14f@sovereign> In-Reply-To: References: <20200410164342.1194634-1-dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> <20200428235015.2820677-1-dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> <20200428235015.2820677-9-dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 8/8] eal/windows: implement basic memory management 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" On Wed, 13 May 2020 08:24:12 +0000 Fady Bader wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > I'm using your latest memory management patchset and getting an error > in the function VirualAlloc2 in eal_mem_commit, error code: 0x57 > (ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER). I'm using Windows server 2019 build 17763, > and followed the steps to Grant *Lock pages in memory* Privilege. > > The parameters that are sent to the function are: > GetCurrentProcess() is -1. > requested_addr is 0x0000025b`93800000. > Size is 0x200000 (sysInfo.dwAllocationGranularity is 0x10000). > Flags is 0x20007000. > Also, Socket_id is 0. > > The call stack is: > 00 dpdk_mempool_test!eal_mem_commit+0x253 > 01 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_seg+0x1b0 > 02 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_seg_walk+0x2a1 > 03 dpdk_mempool_test!rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe+0x81 > 04 dpdk_mempool_test!eal_memalloc_alloc_seg_bulk+0x1a5 > 05 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_pages_on_heap+0x13a > 06 dpdk_mempool_test!try_expand_heap_primary+0x1dc > 07 dpdk_mempool_test!try_expand_heap+0xf5 > 08 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_more_mem_on_socket+0x693 > 09 dpdk_mempool_test!malloc_heap_alloc_on_heap_id+0x2a7 > 0a dpdk_mempool_test!malloc_heap_alloc+0x184 > 0b dpdk_mempool_test!malloc_socket+0xf9 > 0c dpdk_mempool_test!rte_malloc_socket+0x39 > 0d dpdk_mempool_test!rte_zmalloc_socket+0x31 > 0e dpdk_mempool_test!rte_zmalloc+0x2d > 0f dpdk_mempool_test!rte_mempool_create_empty+0x1c9 > 10 dpdk_mempool_test!rte_mempool_create+0xf8 Hi Fady, Can you share the code snippet causing this? -- Dmitry Kozlyuk