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 C4C2EA0C55; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:38:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B28410DA; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:38:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B823440E64 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:38:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE925C00C2; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:38:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= Ti8pwD0ZY8qYhIvw3D3gJ5/y765nGFmC6TJigEzKsgU=; b=HgYTapLh35ttYVfN ULH2DKBF5lG8VJShRX4RdIffMC2EgduNz1Nh9CzhA4SUMpFMb0Dh3n4DTgAk59El 4s9WwQ0MhDMo5eZV061yFwRvIj/EyT/OAM1pPESuge36SnC9PnjYjwNzeu7vYLDX NGfJBjwiuGS0XQnnmJstDvhf5orb4+/E18BHPwj/ZbI/U31hdirj2bhRfZqwd9dH oMHXKjkdBKBL8DjmjeyijtzoWkmFL8fiiMckrGCJNS2xXkgcQ9PYZge6BjPfmkLi /gD0//GxsrCJSZ8+NkGYNj39FbOwIDUf1qQot+ekupkolJ4AEx/yiN6NzbaMEl6c tPevqA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Ti8pwD0ZY8qYhIvw3D3gJ5/y765nGFmC6TJigEzKs gU=; b=baTKUg63VquyrSjUBO/nJlz0vcnLmI7Geqgx9CvHlvT+eyV6ODVXCWO24 8y5d2YCsbmcaG61B9QBZoFrcMUf10oW9DA87sBFgGSPlaTTySy5Y/KOw2Sq9TLmm 0CGhW8MRRNgOe6CreXWwkxqx+mDOA3KEY6KGKYKglYZyBkmGDvrSaVrBHRP244Bf nm0m/lskrRaXeA2kbVb0VAm824BwObdWem1QCjb2jdGQMU7QhNlcqsp7u5v2d0bs wxgnWKCTFVmt92/Fnn1CpX+N6m9ZTZSALVUrKvtlx+EwuBcL5aG3oQsNztft2Ftu RFgN5WT536lM1qyC9guahpkURo0xg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddutddgkeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeejfffhhfeghfetveffgeffteelveekhffghfefgedvleeuveet fffgudelvefhnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:38:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: kefu chai Cc: Bruce Richardson , Avi Kivity , dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:38:34 +0200 Message-ID: <28671346.9nabmiLcpg@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210902151100.140330-1-tchaikov@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] build: add meson options of max_memseg_lists and atomic_mbuf_ref_counts 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 Sender: "dev" 27/09/2021 17:03, kefu chai: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 4:08 PM Bruce Richardson > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 03:51:06PM +0800, kefu chai wrote: > > > hello Bruce, > > > > > > do you have any further concerns? is there anything i can do to move > > > this forward? > > > > > > cheers, > > > > > > > +Anatoly, for his input for the memory segments change. > > > > I still would prefer not to have these as config options, but perhaps one > > or both needs to be. The atomic refcount seems more reasonable to add of > > the two. For the max memseg lists, what is the impact if we were to > > increase this value globally? > > hi Bruce, thank you for your insights. > > yeah, as i explained in the previous email.the atomic refcount is more > critical for my work on integration of DPDK+SPDK+Seastar. since > Seastar enforces share-nothing in its design, there is no need to use > atomic refcount under almost all circumstances. regarding to the max > memseg list, what i am trying is to port the change of > https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/commit/716c7c04db693c266f52de6b0cced0252d70b3bf > to the DPDK used by the latest release of SPDK. I think it would help acceptance to send these changes as 2 separate patches.