DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] memory allocation requirements
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:47:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5710AAA5.5090003@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5710946A.9080001@6wind.com>

On 15/04/2016 08:12, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/14/2016 05:39 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
>>> Just to mention that some evolutions [1] are planned in mempool in
>>> 16.07, allowing to populate a mempool with several chunks of memory,
>>> and still ensuring that the objects are physically contiguous. It
>>> completely removes the need to allocate a big virtually contiguous
>>> memory zone (and also physically contiguous if not using
>>> rte_mempool_create_xmem(), which is probably the case in most of
>>> the applications).
>>>
>>> Knowing this, the code that remaps the hugepages to get the largest
>>> possible physically contiguous zone probably becomes useless after
>>> the mempool series. Changing it to only one mmap(file) in hugetlbfs
>>> per NUMA socket would clearly simplify this part of EAL.
>>>
>> Are you suggesting to make those changes after the mempool series
>> has been applied but keeping the current memzone/malloc behavior?
> I wonder if the default property of memzone/malloc which is to
> allocate physically contiguous memory shouldn't be dropped. It could
> remain optional, knowing that allocating a physically contiguous zone
> larger than a page cannot be guaranteed.
>
> But yes, I'm in favor of doing these changes in eal_memory.c, it would
> drop a lot a complex code (all rtemap* stuff), and today I'm not seeing
> any big issue of doing it... maybe we'll find one during the
> discussion :)

I'm in favor of doing those changes but then I think we need to support 
allocating
no contig memory through memzone/malloc or other libraries such as 
librte_hash
may not be able to get the memory they need, right?
Otherwise all library would need a rework like the mempool series to 
deal with
non-contig memory.

For contig memory, I would prefer a new API for dma areas (something 
similar to
rte_eth_dma_zone_reserve() in ethdev) that would transparently deal with 
the case
where we have multiple huge page sizes.

Sergio


> Regards,
> Olivier

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-15  8:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-13 16:03 Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-13 17:00 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-04-14  8:48 ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2016-04-14 14:46 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-04-14 15:39   ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2016-04-15  7:12     ` Olivier Matz
2016-04-15  8:47       ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy [this message]
2016-05-18 10:28 ` Alejandro Lucero

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=5710AAA5.5090003@intel.com \
    --to=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /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).