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 707BBA0471 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:38:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA452C6A; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:38:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB32D2C60 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:38:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jul 2019 02:38:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,493,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="250782025" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.82]) ([10.237.220.82]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2019 02:38:54 -0700 To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Ferruh Yigit , Vamsi Krishna Attunuru , "dev@dpdk.org" Cc: "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" References: <0ef0c75d-bff6-ac20-61e1-a4a2472fc7f7@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:38:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] add IOVA = VA support in KNI 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" On 15-Jul-19 5:54 AM, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote: >>>>>>> (also, i don't really like the name NO_PAGE_BOUND since in >>>>>>> memzone API there's a "bounded memzone" allocation API, and this >>>>>>> flag's name reads like objects would not be bounded by page size, >>>>>>> not that they won't cross page >>>>>>> boundary) >>>>>> >>>>>> No strong opinion for the name. What name you suggest? >>>>> >>>>> How about something like MEMPOOL_F_NO_PAGE_SPLIT? >>>> >>>> Looks good to me. >>>> >>>> In summary, Change wrt existing patch" >>>> - Change NO_PAGE_BOUND to MEMPOOL_F_NO_PAGE_SPLIT >>>> - Set this flag in rte_pktmbuf_pool_create () when >>> rte_eal_has_hugepages() || >>>> rte_malloc_heap_socket_is_external(socket_id)) >>> >>> If we are to have a special KNI allocation API, would we even need that? >> >> Not need this change in rte_pktmbuf_pool_create () if we introduce a new >> rte_kni_pktmbuf_pool_create () API. > > Ferruh, Olivier, Anatoly, > > Any objection to create new rte_kni_pktmbuf_pool_create () API > to embedded MEMPOOL_F_NO_PAGE_SPLIT flag requirement for KNI + IOVA as VA > > As long as we all are aware of what that means and agree with that consequence (namely, separate codepaths for KNI and other PMD's) then i have no specific objections. -- Thanks, Anatoly