From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA752BD5 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:08:54 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2019 09:08:53 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,400,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="126478823" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.110]) ([10.237.220.110]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2019 09:08:52 -0800 To: Iain Barker , "Wiles, Keith" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Edwin Leung References: <631579E3-02F5-4E12-8BE6-DDAC0AE2E4A7@oracle.com> <549A6EB0-6E19-460D-9BE5-52AA40003AF0@intel.com> <345EDE69-C416-405F-B88C-04EE8384D20F@oracle.com> <896AF59A-4CCF-42FE-B2D7-160C69427DD2@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <2b3d84de-f0a5-4b38-f670-6318725821ab@intel.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:08:50 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 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] Question about DPDK hugepage fd change 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:08:54 -0000 On 06-Feb-19 1:57 PM, Iain Barker wrote: >> Can you use 1G hugepages instead of 2M pages or a combo of the two, not sure how dpdk handles having both in the system? > > Unfortunately, no. Some of our customer deployments are tenancies on KVM hosts and low-end appliances, which are not configurable by the end user to enable 1G huge pages. > > I think we are going to have to revert this patch set from our build, as I don't see any other alternative for using DPDK 18 whilst remaining compliant to the POSIX/glibc requirements. > I just realized that, unless you're using --legacy-mem switch, one other way to alleviate the issue would be to use --single-file-segments option. This will still store the fd's, however it will only do so per memseg list, not per page. So, instead of 1000's of fd's with 2MB pages, you'd end up with under 10. Hope this helps! -- Thanks, Anatoly