From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8A11BB48 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:48:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Oct 2017 08:48:01 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,304,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="1236159311" Received: from tanjianf-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.28.16]) ([10.255.28.16]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2017 08:48:00 -0700 To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , Jonas Pfefferle1 References: <921d836f-87dc-b017-2186-e70905f61612@intel.com> Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com, chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dev@dpdk.org From: "Tan, Jianfeng" Message-ID: <8fa16207-f057-d5fc-1942-54719526c837@intel.com> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 23:48:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Huge mapping secondary process linux 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: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:48:03 -0000 On 10/27/2017 10:44 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 27-Oct-17 3:28 PM, Jonas Pfefferle1 wrote: >> "Burakov, Anatoly" wrote on 10/27/2017 >> 04:06:44 PM: >> >> > From: "Burakov, Anatoly" >> > To: Jonas Pfefferle1 , dev@dpdk.org >> > Cc: chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com >> > Date: 10/27/2017 04:06 PM >> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Huge mapping secondary process linux >> ... >> > > >> > hi Jonas, >> > >> > MAP_FIXED is not used because it's dangerous, it unmaps anything >> that is >> > already mapped into that space. We would rather know that we can't >> map >> > something than unwittingly unmap something that was mapped before. >> >> Ok, I see. Maybe we can add a check to the primary process's memory >> mappings whether the hint has been respected or not? At least warn if >> it hasn't. > > Hi Jonas, > > I'm unfamiliar with POWER platform, so i'm afraid you'd have to > explain a bit more what you mean by "hint has been respected" :) Actually, I also met this case on x86 once that kernel does not respect the "addr" parameter even that memory region is not occupied. I am not sure if it can be reproduced now, anyway, send here FYI: we run primary on the host, run secondary in a container. I'll agree at least we need to check if the final addr is the same of the parameter addr, and warn if it's not. Thanks, Jianfeng