From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: "Stojaczyk, DariuszX" <dariuszx.stojaczyk@intel.com>,
Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] memory: do not use base-virtaddr in secondary processes
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:24:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a59b9b56-7edf-03f6-85ec-faa3a533dbf7@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FBE7E039FA50BF47A673AD0BD3CD56A846160678@HASMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 18-Jun-18 9:12 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alejandro Lucero [mailto:alejandro.lucero@netronome.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:33 PM
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX
>> <dariuszx.stojaczyk@intel.com <mailto:dariuszx.stojaczyk@intel.com> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Can you point me out to an NFP guide or some code that describes
>> this in more detail?
>>
>>
>>
>> As I said, I'm working on a RFC. I will send something shortly. But I could give
>> you an advance: the hugepages needs to be mapped below certain virtual
>> address, 1TB, and I'm afraid that includes the primary and also the
>> secondary processes. At least if any process can send or receive packets
>> to/from a NFP.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, I'm pretty sure we're safe, then.
>
>>
>> If we're talking about base-virtaddr for hugepages, then that's always
>> inherited from the primary process, regardless of what base-virtaddr is
>> supplied to the secondary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But, is not your patch avoiding to use that base-virtaddr for secondary
>> processes?
>
> I see now that the patch name is slightly misleading. Maybe I shouldn’t pick such a catchy title. Let me clarify: As of DPDK 18.05, --base-virtaddr param for secondary process applications only affects that shadow memseg metadata that's not useful for anyone, but can still do a lot of harm. Hugepage memory in secondary processes is always mapped to the same addresses the primary process uses.
>
> D.
>
Hi Alejandro,
To solve this problem, one possible approach would be to have maximum VA
address, and allocate memory downwards, rather than upwards. Is that by
any chance approximate contents of your RFC? :)
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-19 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-18 19:53 [dpdk-stable] " Dariusz Stojaczyk
2018-06-18 17:21 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Alejandro Lucero
2018-06-18 19:03 ` Stojaczyk, DariuszX
2018-06-18 19:33 ` Alejandro Lucero
2018-06-18 20:12 ` Stojaczyk, DariuszX
2018-06-19 9:24 ` Burakov, Anatoly [this message]
2018-06-19 10:23 ` Alejandro Lucero
2018-06-19 10:27 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-06-19 11:48 ` Alejandro Lucero
2018-06-19 9:21 ` [dpdk-stable] " Burakov, Anatoly
2018-07-12 22:08 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a59b9b56-7edf-03f6-85ec-faa3a533dbf7@intel.com \
--to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=alejandro.lucero@netronome.com \
--cc=dariuszx.stojaczyk@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).