From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0C1A0555; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:03:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35B01B951; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:03:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com (mail-wm1-f41.google.com [209.85.128.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C464425B3 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:03:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id q9so986823wmj.5 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:03:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n+ivoBfg5qV4IzvoAstLEZG9XfgOIOi0KF39LUMt9Gw=; b=fyY8Ji052xwq68L3OyZy8G3fZQ724dXk6NTLzcRA+M6pKJqZkbJgJWrY0SAv8WkzYm Zb+lxnj/nAWEUJpSFCHBjKXietJO1cWDP57fz5oMjtSqqZm2eNEK/QsN9uI+a8rT2KOM 15D/ZdCWC7ia6f2vzyHbO8ZpEmNKaoZvapj+MWwvRxqJAXHZyFb05JkRz/P3AbBPFH8V 2jsPyoZC7oPaTqaHINZVsp7RXJo8CMCguEvj02nV9V8TDr27Kvr5g6uFVEbdLR+uPR1k oOP0bXgmK/PK6PNm/zxSWE+2cEkUUkHMgIcuLPPKGsm6SdXPyhH/+FsUohU7WNohuC0H EXcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n+ivoBfg5qV4IzvoAstLEZG9XfgOIOi0KF39LUMt9Gw=; b=K9tDkLlAUgnkq/vq28jUxxnwyyIy7GqEpeZQa+Yd2kaBFyjPF88zFQRP2pzpcwUE4X BiyfaQfhHEagvuiHvsyPBM7lwoTO4gvB/mxZvJYMJv0hAg7uI7rkSGDNauFWeLwX7mu3 /Yf1LC3Im8Hq7/YENtqGz7KQSS+SrqVtkpfu0wdd8+umW0L1ft+x5a7s9kXASxD9Kiv3 3pZ7mXMAYMuprHwfl6zuaRrQfnM11YU1yFBfcw60qLsq5Ngaqh+UVuw7fhjHoYs4VvQV b/TVgqh5sfBr9HW9r/x7wFVdCYtC/h7YhyjmnRJWf2oj2up38LA12SCmbxz3Q6qTFROw 5usw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxm5NuCQclBo/n+vnj8dbpMkGSGvKqrZODsq61sbiB/h+L/SfT m2YYMCxSeP+oaI/5NGswHYq6aPSSeL7OHMSS48A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/CVLEkFytgcncCq/ZSFW0WxnzriWPNaykr9YWgm9voSC84rlUlYhMFf2flS9jqh2PQkaUhBAXLl6AhyJAI8Y= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:770e:: with SMTP id t14mr10558661wmi.101.1582124588563; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:03:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5192f94a-e50a-7e61-2e33-a218a4b6b5b4@intel.com> <9c888eb0-2192-137c-da5c-97f30da5204a@intel.com> <56527d9f-b079-a580-4a80-2207c1822260@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <56527d9f-b079-a580-4a80-2207c1822260@intel.com> From: Kamaraj P Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:32:56 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Kevin Traynor , dev@dpdk.org, Nageswara Rao Penumarthy , "Kamaraj P (kamp)" , mtang2@cisco.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEM_MB fails in DPDK18.05 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Thanks for the suggestions. We didnt have --mlockall parameter option in the rte_eal_init(). we have just tried the option and our application says an *unrecognized option*. Lets us check further on this and let you know. Thanks, Kamaraj On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:53 PM Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 19-Feb-20 11:16 AM, Kamaraj P wrote: > > Hi Kevin/Anatoly, > > > > Yes we have the patch already included in our code base. > > > > Looks like it get struck in the below piece of the code: > > mapped_addr = mmap(requested_addr, (size_t)map_sz, PROT_READ, > > mmap_flags, -1, 0); > > > > Could you please share your thoughts on this? > > > > Thanks, > > Kamaraj > > > > Hi, > > If it's stuck mapping, that probably means it is pinning the memory. Did > you call mlockall() (or equivalent) before EAL initialization? > > -- > Thanks, > Anatoly >