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 468E2A00BE; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 17:19:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BE41BED5; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 17:19:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9171B9A9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 17:19:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0B85AFE3 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id q13so11462723iot.11 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT) 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=p1paY7CJ34ovhvoNMdSDFzR6TJibnXQ93fCqMsuVTJg=; b=RiNjstZo0ySFSAAp/tFsAHvaAvbpw6xfZA30L713YaXkAICULsOW3pBoq8DlT4PfXn sh5BFWZOsrjDS8SfuX0aOG+CGaQCrDSvRLRjU5IJDlf0L/LJK+k+g9iMwraKSl86nJmw tl3SHQxK6SDNy3rIBJOgCJB3xSj/tgoM/7d2wyu7s/5w6wfExX9f7LtpUvY1OeS7Ix7O qQHjPBk8G5WD9psgpY/1Ijsm9o2jkM56eMkqf97NlI024hIoKmj6mDqf4kE66gMAsi4Z 9ZaysttdObUjk/FIxi+mqWvTHtcU5wcJuGfio0Qkw0mCuLLlLl7zSDVwrwVEZiSm/V9D ilSw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXTIbMGBrY68xC7sVMNsRSeusXc2zJFrHYBFlTSQSBBWv+9ypxq PRSHDEuHA06zhZR661lWikrbqI+wFE5bgO6A9ZhRkxm+dHLg4QhFrDJD4WlzZ9by7Eed5hylAVu JZaj4JA6rpZcITNN99eM= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:de43:: with SMTP id e3mr4604430ioq.23.1572365972126; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+ikv/wE0N8uuDo+d39YzNdE4X7gpzi5FXA4+yv0lEYfXXR2KK8fW+JnvjUlNs4XZGoPC61ssFVAr7KmFH+w8= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:de43:: with SMTP id e3mr4604403ioq.23.1572365971867; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 09:19:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191015161727.32570-1-fbl@sysclose.org> <20191015185951.6295-1-fbl@sysclose.org> <20191029092128.58bb6c9f@p50.lan> In-Reply-To: <20191029092128.58bb6c9f@p50.lan> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 17:19:20 +0100 Message-ID: To: Flavio Leitner Cc: dev , Ilya Maximets , Maxime Coquelin , Shahaf Shuler , Tiwei Bie , Obrembski MichalX , Stokes Ian Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] vhost: add support for large buffers 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" On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:21 PM Flavio Leitner wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:02:57 +0100 > David Marchand wrote: > > Using rte_malloc() means that the allocation can end up on any numa > > node. This external buffer might end up on a different node than the > > mbuf (which resides on mp->socket_id node). > > Only if there is no memory in the local socket. It seems better than a > failure to me. This won't fail, but you don't know how it will impact the application. We are moving from a model where the vhost library used a mempool with a fixed number of buffers on a known socket to a model where we can't guarantee how much memory vhost will eat, and where the allocations happen. I am just scared we will get bitten by random allocation failures on a system that was "used to run fine". -- David Marchand