Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] add IOVA = VA support in KNI

["Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>]

On 25-Jun-19 12:30 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 25-Jun-19 12:15 PM, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Burakov, Anatoly
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:30 PM
>>> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>> Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com; olivier.matz@6wind.com;
>>> arybchenko@solarflare.com
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] add IOVA = VA support in KNI
>>>
>>> On 25-Jun-19 4:56 AM, vattunuru@marvell.com wrote:
>>>> From: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> V6 Changes:
>>>> * Added new mempool flag to ensure mbuf memory is not scattered across
>>>> page boundaries.
>>>> * Added KNI kernel module required PCI device information.
>>>> * Modified KNI example application to create mempool with new mempool
>>>> flag.
>>>>
>>> Others can chime in, but my 2 cents: this reduces the usefulness of 
>>> KNI because
>>> it limits the kinds of mempools one can use them with, and makes it 
>>> so that the
>>> code that works with every other PMD requires changes to work with KNI.
>>
>> # One option to make this flag as default only for packet mempool(not 
>> allow allocate on page boundary).
>> In real world the overhead will be very minimal considering Huge page 
>> size is 1G or 512M
>> # Enable this flag explicitly only IOVA = VA mode in library. Not  
>> need to expose to application
>> # I don’t think, there needs to be any PMD specific change to make KNI 
>> with IOVA = VA mode
>> # No preference on flags to be passed by application vs in library. 
>> But IMO this change would be
>> needed in mempool support KNI in IOVA = VA mode.
>>
> 
> I would be OK to just make it default behavior to not cross page 
> boundaries when allocating buffers. This would solve the problem for KNI 
> and for any other use case that would rely on PA-contiguous buffers in 
> face of IOVA as VA mode.
> 
> We could also add a flag to explicitly allow page crossing without also 
> making mbufs IOVA-non-contiguous, but i'm not sure if there are use 
> cases that would benefit from this.

On another thought, such a default would break 4K pages in case for 
packets bigger than page size (i.e. jumbo frames). Should we care?

> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anatoly
> 
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly