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 947FD46FE8; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 03:30:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0195B40270; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 03:30:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtpbg151.qq.com (smtpbg151.qq.com [18.169.211.239]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE39F4025F for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 03:30:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tencent.com; s=s201512; t=1765247437; bh=ZCFkfH7QgYtUcw2J4pXoJFqJFR4H8v9xg/DIN7JBI7I=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=vt5s7z9ad1I6J/CZoMx4zpyrTxed3IIbjL7ecIYqppuVbdYsPqaZGl9MJjrhGeG7W boa8C+w+pyVq3caI7Rwjo9y7kGZuC4pWzFfrpkLwpMPuS/a8lZNRr6QHwS7c7Hlw01 4W/0VeeV9ACahO52LVzcWhrU67FLdhamUfb9nTi4= X-QQ-mid: zesmtpgz1t1765247433t3d7983d5 X-QQ-Originating-IP: jAuXglt1p56bDZuJLc/C4b1CnUE2UZi82L0IAffxilw= Received: from [127.0.0.1] ( [11.176.19.22]) by bizesmtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 10:30:32 +0800 (CST) X-QQ-SSF: 0000000000000000000000000000000 X-QQ-GoodBg: 0 X-BIZMAIL-ID: 734143473917541928 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:30:32 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [Internet]Re: [PATCH v6] acl: support custom memory allocators To: Stephen Hemminger , Konstantin Ananyev Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" References: <58cca566-08bd-469e-b244-1800e0456cb0@huawei.com> <2571c074e438491e837c51d1bdc5a538@huawei.com> <20251208112916.2743f596@phoenix.local> From: "=?gb18030?B?bWFubnl3YW5nKM3108C35Sk=?=" In-Reply-To: <20251208112916.2743f596@phoenix.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520 Feedback-ID: zesmtpgz:tencent.com:qybglogicsvrsz:qybglogicsvrsz3b-0 X-QQ-XMAILINFO: MjqaYNLY8QZGCMINOEup+XmQuWq8eKITx679rXufeLYU2NuYE9pplrHe qTHVLADjnTFb1JU+xQfRJ2o7hfO0EEzJawo4glx4tXN2um6XTXk6a1XP2/vnYewXONA54aH pnQtL4gT7QuJyHMJCed6FHp6WK84YXIc3dM5K/+Tz/5KhD146spYCx7dvkO03JTEkutrJpI duY0V6UXDXCdARb11WyTvPbsvhpOKWd5km2DWddaebG3dagL3OdN9KjwNsJxLNYnU4NjcLz v5ngXyPYnYtnyXxn5qX5zumbKCrCTwig2SX4imtpfFDtx8IU7JCVgx2ZVDTnnYBrqt0ElLt +RRt99IRdgY5egAxy155InX7uJCkFgLh5iuemNrNjsSrdmJ9bA3fqlul7Zr/Da9NjEnPdIJ ORICEHCBoQSh1ptEbyvQdHrqLXq0XWfdCn6uywoSUvni1O0m74eMpEs96mWFcDoYKfMhMUB MREHCcTMxlabzaTCQHW+d6u5+EaOtML2U9x+B4fCN32Qc5aU9EqVlTY6t7Z7GVpGZSZ0/3e lVpE3WlJRh660hLbpxRI6QVvRcHlzOjD18XMe3JLnbZkRfqnKre9elB2jH42AWF5e+R+0bC YJljXYAxRvtUd66FwOUKrXczEQ5Kx/T2a2D0Gi9hlQxGDqLJi0dJEZmJ5pvzCh7BkGLw0H1 Pfxzolof3bCeAAQEpcNzDkJVPcZbIQnktzr8ak5AWRfjqPJNIwHM1yEaKBhrEB/805bep35 IugUV5bvoDCSd1o34AObZcZqUmQkAAqaO+qm+pTEpP5T0Z4l7rlkpLlz99CwFkOGKYDhx3y cjnutB0cbiKSrD7GCfICpK7DWbfLB7BfjUUnrcoSGNOg+Ez9lSit42N4K9EngoUoN8+DK08 7XD4xbg9HGfkQAl0TfmpCpW4GL3rnyntYX4ay4FlcOJtnlnesBJSh2UNSova57iBaOMAOmr XDar92evTcjL/szuHCl1WPoyG X-QQ-XMRINFO: OD9hHCdaPRBwq3WW+NvGbIU= X-QQ-RECHKSPAM: 0 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 Just to add some background on how ACL currently allocates memory: ACL has two types of allocations: 1. The memory used for the ACL match trie is NUMA-aware. This part relies on specific NUMA placement, so replacing rte_malloc with regular malloc/free is not feasible. 2. The temporary memory used during the build phase already uses malloc/free, since NUMA locality is not required there. On 12/9/2025 3:29 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > A lot of the problems would go away if ACL just used regular malloc/free more, > and rte_malloc/rte_free less. The existing rte_malloc is slow and fragments badly