From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <spp-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6181BA0526
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554E51DBC7;
	Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from inbox.dpdk.org (xvm-172-178.dc0.ghst.net [95.142.172.178])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725171DBC7
 for <spp@dpdk.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:24:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
 id 530C4A0527; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:24:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: bugzilla@dpdk.org
To: spp@dpdk.org
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:24:23 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: SPP
X-Bugzilla-Component: main
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical
X-Bugzilla-Who: masahiro.nemoto.es@s1.ntt-tx.co.jp
X-Bugzilla-Status: CONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: High
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: yasufum.o@gmail.com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-443-394-cjImewZjEy@http.bugs.dpdk.org/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-443-394@http.bugs.dpdk.org/>
References: <bug-443-394@http.bugs.dpdk.org/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.dpdk.org/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [spp] [Bug 443] spp primary takes up the complete hugepages
X-BeenThere: spp@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Soft Patch Panel <spp.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/spp>,
 <mailto:spp-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/spp/>
List-Post: <mailto:spp@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spp-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/spp>,
 <mailto:spp-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: spp-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "spp" <spp-bounces@dpdk.org>

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D443

--- Comment #13 from masahiro nemoto (masahiro.nemoto.es@s1.ntt-tx.co.jp) -=
--
Hello Vipin,

I found the related documents of memory management of DPDK as following.
https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/articles/memory-in-dpd=
k-part-4-1811-and-beyond.html

Now I think I understand the meaning of '--socket-mem' and '--socket-limit'.
But at the same time, new questions pops up.
Can you answer those basic questions.

Q1.
If user specify enough memory with '--socket-mem'(e.g. 5Gbytes), then no ne=
ed
to think
about '--socket-limit'.
(However this may risk the situation like following:
"Large memory pre-allocated but almost all memory not used, thus waste of
memory from
system perspective")

Q2.
'--socket-limit' specifies upper limit of memory usage regardless of
'--socket-mem' value.
Then what is the risk(e.g. performance) when user specify '--socket-limit'
without '--socket-mem'.

In general I understand that it is 'safe' to specify both parameters
rather than specifying only one of those.

But it depends on 'characteristic of DPDK application',right?
At least, SPP does NOT need additional memory in runtime
(rather primary process allocate memory only during initialization).

In addition, adding many parameters may lead to 'confusion' or 'mistype'
and needs much workload to update documents.

Your advice is highly appreciated.
What do you think?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=