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 A7D65A0545; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:42:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5599A4069C; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:42:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A76540151 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:42:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870895C00BA; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:42:18 -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=1655822538; x= 1655908938; bh=TjLFsDovpxflc8bmm22wfme0h/brGOr2WgemZLTk1iQ=; b=l 3gLCnCUC34IbrqeO5FeWcSAwOqpYxahOeeZwmgBLakMmkLv7tXDxkt6O0BqaR5ni N7IB+Q9gAwF+XeUJkCYQV9c2mxAwQRfDLhE+7gIFV442AKmZxcv1yk3F6jhUg3U8 dyvFO0uA+hUcWU8F0CkGP2yn/Cisp92HlD3zLtSv5rMZI4XKEFEI3jP0rETxEKv6 ocPzOKE43b31YuOvSupg7IH2tmAsLOP9xrqNSb8ZhJR2Y81ih7JNlbAPlXtkfVsI 6C7mvRgoylSsNEUCABn0iP0UJ2n2GpuDbxK/S/BS+LV/U40HMkLYOAuTShAn7Poe c8AtDoqW7nTuR34AtN1EA== 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=1655822538; x= 1655908938; bh=TjLFsDovpxflc8bmm22wfme0h/brGOr2WgemZLTk1iQ=; b=b rc2fCM6BAt01DW8mJeLJKvHEM7n3YH6mRvf0iXcPDqtLjxPeTYSzbtWHIkE+1HGQ thXwU34N5pJZrhMRLUd0j/UHePKtR1BSjRweTNpx4zMVI6CWWb5CZES5WK5aDs6c cowfTtpr2GODHFIbfssxcu3Cfbqpcjyxf0cA1nfLTODO8kpIIr+GYEuj7uTnG/Jw vKihwtVDKXuT3HKrDJB9aJjlwwfkGyE01DdeUKFjAa6f9TDgDFPs4glYgBLbkAPu TOYucBqz129B1S4Yy0EQYKPKjTyvPoNYJRv1uvmSEzkb3vWAwJK2eoFjTOxE0ARF a6p5FZfWU9Kce4T4zolsg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudeffedgjeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf 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 10:42:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , Dmitry Kozlyuk , David Marchand , Don Wallwork Cc: dev@dpdk.org, 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 16:42:14 +0200 Message-ID: <6401977.6fTUFtlzNn@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220502141058.12707-1-donw@xsightlabs.com> <11989770.5MRjnR8RnV@thomas> 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 21/06/2022 14:31, Don Wallwork: > On 6/21/2022 6:37 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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. > > > > > Wouldn't that have the potential to create confusion? The point of this > change is to allocate worker stacks from hugepages. Removing huge > from the option name could give the impression that the command is > simply to control worker stack size. It means if we control the worker stack size with a DPDK option, DPDK memory will be used. But we cannot force hugepage with this option. Hugepage is not always available and it can be disabled in DPDK. > Regarding your other comments, I'm working on another patch that will > address those.