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 281D4A00C5; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 12:37:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1EF41132; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 12:37:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0004069C for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 12:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC07C5C00E5; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 06:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 06:37:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1655807872; x= 1655894272; bh=+RMNnaTqM5YDY7W5e4yb36GfHFPXj8gg7hM+SSzXEgE=; b=E UEll/ggflklfbS9IFfPJiB2lMFdPit/EuYgQJPOmUByW6GNyh2Uh6f8icboIuafC ceiBror1GvT1vsfDkTxxTSnohlr6NP4WNz513VIbWR0NbkWauEqLoBLVkt61eTQM uYh+zEqw2kP+60spe7eUS0eLAYwnJH3S5QyCgmqhn8jGO/z2YOWG2kUizDr1XoRT 6kp7EMLacNDccIKrkpy8HFkYiYDnVrf3HSn+DmURNSMFRraFhz+6USD6jvXE0wuh gQjoi0wcTu78F4MDZaMqzGuAWFefnWL1l55XIp4kUV1yZNBSRzljW6q4yzNb1qHo xiAkGsRwIZui6tOPIaN7A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1655807872; x= 1655894272; bh=+RMNnaTqM5YDY7W5e4yb36GfHFPXj8gg7hM+SSzXEgE=; b=e lvPdbBj9vlYBSFzvrQuyIPil//A7Kn9CkXDlWuzexJA66sCVh2W4ibNm+B1Eaxb6 bJxrDUQ5ho44bF/E/RTRgR0Wbbl8huQWZjp6cDXndiw0S3uX/KMKkS4mCHcVTsF+ AovY4w66ES4rTbXP3e3Pr0QIdcXBWWan5iogmCWRBhNuR4G8xzZ45btHmCrKeSeG qkaRjd/w0wvHW11C8KM3E5Z1nd61MeGMislxREuBfZ6cwWpBLfZ2ZXWhgvAUEXFZ Gt8kN8CX+VKsRuADPI9inh0v3voCIbDH8yRY5NzCgC/gZc+NRWS5Ls+3EzcHgtb5 QhdltA+Z3bUIcjD/UuvRg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudeffedgfedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtjeeiieefhedtfffgvdelteeufeefheeujefgueetfedttdei kefgkeduhedtgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 06:37:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Don Wallwork , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Dmitry Kozlyuk , dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand Cc: dev , Stephen Hemminger , Chengwen Feng , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Bruce Richardson , Honnappa Nagarahalli , nd , "Wang, Haiyue" , Kathleen.Capella@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] eal: allow worker lcore stacks to be allocated from hugepage memory Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 12:37:49 +0200 Message-ID: <11989770.5MRjnR8RnV@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220502141058.12707-1-donw@xsightlabs.com> <20220524195138.4963-1-donw@xsightlabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 20/06/2022 10:35, David Marchand: > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 9:52 PM Don Wallwork wrote: > > > > Add support for using hugepages for worker lcore stack memory. The > > intent is to improve performance by reducing stack memory related TLB > > misses and also by using memory local to the NUMA node of each lcore. > > EAL option '--huge-worker-stack [stack-size-in-kbytes]' is added to allow > > the feature to be enabled at runtime. If the size is not specified, > > the system pthread stack size will be used. > > - About the name of the option... I don't have a better name. > > Just want to highlight, that what this patch does is use the DPDK > memory allocator for the stack memory. > It happens that DPDK memory allocator is primarily used with > hugepages, but this is not systematic for example with the "no-huge" > mode of the DPDK memory allocator. > > IOW, in this patch current form, you can still run as: > > # dpdk-testpmd -c 3 --no-huge --huge-worker-stack=16 -m 40 -- etc... > > Opinions? The name of the option should not include "huge". What about "--worker-stack" ? If disabled (equal zero), the workers should use the default stack memory.