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 0D684A04F3; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 18:01:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F296D1DBC; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 18:01:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com (mail-wm1-f65.google.com [209.85.128.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E608A3 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 18:01:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id y23so12059767wma.0 for ; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 09:01:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=50KMeveF4pBpTdyc7Oou4oJTvQgORXGvP39owWacpPI=; b=GHta63tKOLnNRSHfeEtI1ZvG3t5yGZGivPHrPtn0kBrCkEkLLcXvR8SUTRiR/5uuId weIVdob1/+HbaP4xPbFqxGFFQTI3iZAro9DhCji/iJCUoGGH0hsBZKZ67AruFfx3wWV/ 1NJet6qhf9Qp3kJpSsuxyNjgYh3RDfSEPtwYdNUNMtKf9RGwdsIWgScc0qoUkLEYPTBz VaURUUkANZhpeCx+ZhiU0vl4GXw/8o5pcO01crHBy0R6HVu0wHscQ68VQ7yDGSRE4Wpr ZffGxOycBFAbRjndGUpMvndogXTlSoXmXjU+GqWwUb3NGR1qY4nFPJsXZ2Ud2bpeoMmj vBmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=50KMeveF4pBpTdyc7Oou4oJTvQgORXGvP39owWacpPI=; b=AjXbjOc+FuNFzbq29zA5o+z72j89/SRMTRrPRpGcCOGDdNGZMlI6ifKVWpJilwGLxT hg8kGH5RRhWuAbUvtdkjDLyjSqNEbHKjMHyLvzsVvQd4x6Sw9X4eugc/W80EqanvEjHa YT2F/ibcjc+W294mJI6aHepTQLy6w/Xt2DUbUlb+53H5o/wobTtYTYYj/pJIpIOOgElg Dk0K8Axu4HnqdCYXF02ib5y6Af/AutSsiFKerO+Lx2L37wxwG7yst88v7YDoBN7/e1AN Bejy7GK3/zeR1cIUGF6h7c2ra8HNQIT2Jb/4OhDkSkXwaQnvz52atc4r46ooyJAZtJD4 y2bg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXpag9lCtwjqxewdRfv7eyUxGc4wnzIG4GOJAiH9PCO/PYvdaWE f/Ds2uqoT92lCHtoMbwwZEsDz6dtzOmBLfEIs3Fx+7rBv1I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzG9oab7qHezcoUrXwhMGr5RM/cYZ9ATeDyasYmfMAqBJNt/q6Fh9I6c3NeAMTAW3a7ArsOwfsx8y1mmLO/R0o= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cd8a:: with SMTP id y10mr16063075wmj.136.1575738110789; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 09:01:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Kamaraj P Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 22:31:39 +0530 Message-ID: To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Nageswara Rao Penumarthy , "Kamaraj P (kamp)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-dev] CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEM_MB fails in DPDK18.05 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" Hello All, Currently, we are facing an issue with memory allocation failure in memseg_primary_init(). When we configure the CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEM_MB to 512MB and correspondingly configured the number of huge pages for our platform. But the virtual memory allocation is failing. It appears that its trying to allocate CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_PER_LIST * Huge page size (i.e. 8192 * 2MB = 0x400000000) and virtual memory allocation is failing. Also tried changing the CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_PER_LIST to 64 with which virtual memory allocation is passing for the 128MB (64 * 2MB). But looks like 128MB memory is not enough and it is causing the PCIe enumeration failure. Not able allocate virtual memory beyond 128MB by increasing the CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_PER_LIST beyond 64. Is there are any settings(argument) which we need to pass as part of rte_eal_init() to get success in the virtual memory allocation? Please advise. Thanks, Kamaraj