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 AF5FBA0566; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:11:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B36A1BF96; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:11:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7601BF7F for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:11:23 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583853083; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1InfZhvZ/pjcWgrTRdxyhejrazgcKxpQdw1FR3OTMrI=; b=VjlK2wWmz+punkBcISqlK1mVyxkWy1oKsfSP4VP9T0s7zx7WE1aeNfyFB8IpPHnzL6Ef9h 5dP4qSlOYkj1ZrPaJ6RXg+FWsXfNzuhn26X3/J71JUf0Mlg8N+VExlxaErw23T3VqeAMy+ OYu+9kI85i+JE+VTkymp/vdSsLp8Uuw= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-405-h_o_5YmBMiiAJiBZEIjdmQ-1; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:11:21 -0400 X-MC-Unique: h_o_5YmBMiiAJiBZEIjdmQ-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id s128so257313vkb.6 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:11:21 -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=KIPuV99g3xjAQF/bcbcMewqI2XvgeJ7s60o6sB9zywI=; b=IgKRsnVrvs20nU5N/xowUmW9Wwq0stKKw4b7x4NEpll0AH1KTKbthngy6TKaXn2mYL WT0PMO2yhO6pQxV2OFUUE/c+r9dEVo33zo1bkZn5rWOokuJa4xCXdDuAn4Zi9h5N5BVG aA6mDewvOCBl18F3O4cDiTdEOIEyB5O4JAXh9Gqt9iF99VBjvWsF+2toJniy5bmXqsYG X+PshFnheZz/KJ/6xeATE9zR+hg8WScqPQITFtxaFjaykz5G5Pktfd/GQEEzE4+WLCQv Qt/i52Hph2oMYdjrALojWvsh8gILP2Ql23ErZDnmMvGueHnHPon0GulK/MeppqsVrVlQ ReQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2VpAh0eqIPVK+Td9sxsbmgSa6gUxjQkTmg/5Veouvfc/0z41ME SaBQ+cHbaNId9ZoBQ/1Ot+GqPSv9vOBeEgx5EEl8QF308+/yUfWIYxn6SGs8clXK1HiJZwlPJ1B 3kbAx9YPC9/UjsmdVIRY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:69d8:: with SMTP id e207mr7031906vsc.141.1583853080886; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvZ5xozi7vUTIcv2sQQnxtrr55CXIH/cAoo/EnuzNlnJQZ9SVHome/SfpoNkg6WGN/7n2KSeOkUvRZaQNT3qik= X-Received: by 2002:a67:69d8:: with SMTP id e207mr7031881vsc.141.1583853080510; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:11:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200306144844.27255-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <3393023e-4596-5f85-0b3d-b603b6394bf8@intel.com> <4388d10a-9f54-5a27-8d9d-4581ebeb283c@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4388d10a-9f54-5a27-8d9d-4581ebeb283c@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:11:09 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev , Eelco Chaudron , Aaron Conole , Maxime Coquelin , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Wenzhuo Lu , Jingjing Wu , Bernard Iremonger X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] app/testpmd: only lock text pages 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, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:08 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote= : > >> +1 to the idea, testpmd initialization was taking too lock without > >> '--no-mlockall', but this code looks complex for the application level= . > >> > >> We can do this for testpmd but does all applications need to do someth= ing > >> similar? If so can we have a solution on eal level instead? > > > > I submitted a patch on the EAL side. > > This makes mlockall way lighter, since it skips pages marked with PROT_= NONE. > > http://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/66469/ > > > > Cool, > > With that patch timing improves a lot, in my system testpmd initializatio= n > reduced from 38s to 9s. (it was 6s with --no-mlockall). > > Do we still need this testpmd patch? My intention is to drop this RFC once Anatoly gives a ACK on the EAL side. --=20 David Marchand