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 E99FEA0562; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:49:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA792BA8; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:49:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17B5FEB for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:49:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583516981; 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=mSNKU7Z7kqJElfwxgHtgDQ5Vpv3nSWluRLybVKoFwUI=; b=g9oMikqul0pP+wWWUzE/rD89a4MwkQ678SMS5kbF/GIzc7E4JVPIMrvaLitTktuwYs1KGy zpefWmzv9BHuWS62mSRAizUrATznCNZ8+WICM/XAr03nBfsDjScJPpqK8G8GoGd6oJaijH 6G/uAoQWSt3xneALkgKpP2m/0Fas8+0= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-471-ypupYdewNFu33m4voJuVDw-1; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 12:49:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ypupYdewNFu33m4voJuVDw-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id n60so569999uan.11 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:49:39 -0800 (PST) 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mSNKU7Z7kqJElfwxgHtgDQ5Vpv3nSWluRLybVKoFwUI=; b=HO7IG8ATmht/TDo6Wt3te5+9P+bh6+7g9wtN5+o1o+MjsPnGLoYBPWspgKtTqR2oqT fld1Ped1QSRgjZ/qK3ur29Fwy+SM8lwkwLQPrIs3gaXXAEZJqk4L0Is0kKH8uCKD+NfC k9iP+0aSNKZt/hb6KB5ApqiXn9U4fBt1PcmiS2HxsdnUeSEIqW/yIpScs6WN/s0Yw10q Cj38bbl8mnsvuEB49+C1ZKNn5Q3YsniaKMjVbvUfdgedsa598aiP8Y8ogVG1YWtaitY8 r1Y8XaGbi81BVdAJRfgPXaYTYGyitWtjJkfwjDERyW+2yDz3wC+JWwrklgGhK9J+DZL0 733Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1T9uSEdhFE5VdIB4mpNegfIW4eRW2OS8j9CPZQCWGqDlLFSU5B 5GDB/zQe4NzKWX3ZoCSarh1C0y3w4Kp8uzIX+gxn/iUW1ma0WHQ+ncJF6n8YmNmQwvtCjcMbnWf 22Z5Jhic/Sxm2cPgyF8M= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9d8a:: with SMTP id g132mr2413385vke.39.1583516979151; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:49:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvsA4RhidsMAz532tOgZJ60tHzJNC2knsGCeYU7T1yJQUeyWxhu5jJ6h9o6LaH1xx1gmGJH0RtiJr46d/mA4Es= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9d8a:: with SMTP id g132mr2413360vke.39.1583516978862; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:49:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:49:27 +0100 Message-ID: To: "humin (Q)" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhouchang (Forest)" , Xiedonghui , "liudongdong (C)" , lihuisong , "Huwei (Xavier)" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Thomas Monjalon , Maxime Coquelin 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]app/testpmd: time-consuming question of mlockall function execution 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 Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:59 AM humin (Q) wrote: > We have another question about your patch. It seems that mlockall() also = takes about two seconds after using this patch(about 0.2 seconds before usi= ng this patch), if we use "always" option for transparent hugepage configra= tion. Is this reasonable and acceptable? Hard to tell what reasonable/acceptable mean. I'd say "it depends" :-). > If that is ok, when will the patch be uploaded to DPDK community? I sent a RFC earlier, that makes testpmd only lock pages containing text. Can you have a try and report your findings? Thanks. --=20 David Marchand