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 8F42543F61; Wed, 1 May 2024 16:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77987402A7; Wed, 1 May 2024 16:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f180.google.com (mail-pf1-f180.google.com [209.85.210.180]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124354021E for ; Wed, 1 May 2024 16:42:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6ed04c91c46so6536426b3a.0 for ; Wed, 01 May 2024 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1714574560; x=1715179360; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9rs7ahUA4YVaZHS3aau3R2EJf7PYZG71tEMExgh1U54=; b=dDpncwK6VdLAkoRqhWYFI2f8JY0b2YdsCJV0V9fV/S7ASR6s7A9drlOrXW0GqTr6Fy nEnqxalDPcGZybajubxamtriaUXDZPOG+SlnLkCyQOQm0b3NAAU74lCHGq8M7C1czSpo eAoasU/PDW7ke9kNNgSsUbrOh6b5veCchjwZVlHcjX1TqzqCoVZNEIQiAbzQGOUhXebl YGEbCYjTupuwJgbffPjloVvz9EC+9vp9QC0mI7PL1ec4l4e3nmgHXThbuvotaNl6kxnn YFJ8CmhZQPUCb/PBQMryubAQw3RMhsjmf49LHmzCz9YSJqw466vh0MP1wGWECyzW/plq cy8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714574560; x=1715179360; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9rs7ahUA4YVaZHS3aau3R2EJf7PYZG71tEMExgh1U54=; b=KUsPIaMKrKqRGXMwSBNwKLbzxZdGs2B2qCMBL4+r+CtNx2mehX4eGd57KCm1k6nasE vkYCbw97hHBf9Q+vaxzzAyz0HGo39UdApkuKb7ZHF8gY3ALWFc1WVWZEhmUVH/X62qNw JFG2QCSs97c7lr17zia1PhDZSvY8R/mUM3o15OuOPj0eFBsgIlpzGkNFUJ98LnQvlVpl H94+ctn7V2Guh976RSpirdfhKsC59riP9Rjt3MU0ByQSmtrrulqLoIR3Fii4jRwGHlh2 +RNfC3sKsXzjbw3z3+Ld7CIAffe6j0jzcFehcb9tOjG+u+s8RTEUyAnRcMNyj7hoiEjJ 6KCA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU+P9wqWBusNO0LNgMJx4UknMSZptfr101X27ZJeL4qMK1h8mkPEe30U0P+XChB9653VgnaZdcc1Rzceb0= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxS2WdIvGA1y8FK8ViAwp5HADEHLsg/gPW68KgSnSIZ9h+UBEC1 GUnqGTwE+p7tqhrz2ggxpXgkZ/wVjWUjyCcGjwEPbwdkRSyzbv5g2cReqj1H6Lk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGpoiwYlwxwa8TbSUexRL15GtlchCf8M5ZvbBwHPFb4bklXfl/0eZIZaDORuugMdV6Oz7bG2g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2d06:b0:6f0:28a4:a6ac with SMTP id fa6-20020a056a002d0600b006f028a4a6acmr3274819pfb.8.1714574560019; Wed, 01 May 2024 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r18-20020aa79892000000b006ed0c9751d0sm23356825pfl.98.2024.05.01.07.42.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 May 2024 07:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 07:42:38 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: "Etelson, Gregory" Cc: Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org, =?UTF-8?B?wqA=?= , rasland@nvidia.com, alialnu@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] cmdline: configure input buffer size Message-ID: <20240501074238.0033d275@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <96d1ac1-b2cf-f6db-1e24-aead628a9d16@nvidia.com> References: <20240501052659.231457-1-getelson@nvidia.com> <96d1ac1-b2cf-f6db-1e24-aead628a9d16@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On Wed, 1 May 2024 13:06:47 +0300 (IDT) "Etelson, Gregory" wrote: > > Basic question, what would be the impact of increasing the default from 512 > > to 1k or 2k? Do we get a large memory footprint increase, or is it just an > > extra 1 or 2k of memory used? > > > > /Bruce > > > > Increasing the RDLINE_BUF_SIZE size will also increase application memory usage. > However, that memory increase was required, because application could not fit > it's command line into the default buffer. > > Applications that can run with the default RDLINE_BUF_SIZE are not affected by > that patch. > > Regards, > Gregory The buffer is transient so should have little impact. Why not just use LINE_MAX from limits.h?