From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1202BE2; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:24:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jun 2018 02:24:17 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,242,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="65345899" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.26.59]) ([10.252.26.59]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2018 02:24:16 -0700 To: "Stojaczyk, DariuszX" , Alejandro Lucero Cc: dev , "stable@dpdk.org" References: <1529351589-173939-1-git-send-email-dariuszx.stojaczyk@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:24:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] memory: do not use base-virtaddr in secondary processes 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:24:19 -0000 On 18-Jun-18 9:12 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alejandro Lucero [mailto:alejandro.lucero@netronome.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:33 PM >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX >> > >> wrote: >> >> Can you point me out to an NFP guide or some code that describes >> this in more detail? >> >> >> >> As I said, I'm working on a RFC. I will send something shortly. But I could give >> you an advance: the hugepages needs to be mapped below certain virtual >> address, 1TB, and I'm afraid that includes the primary and also the >> secondary processes. At least if any process can send or receive packets >> to/from a NFP. >> >> > > Thanks, I'm pretty sure we're safe, then. > >> >> If we're talking about base-virtaddr for hugepages, then that's always >> inherited from the primary process, regardless of what base-virtaddr is >> supplied to the secondary. >> >> >> >> >> But, is not your patch avoiding to use that base-virtaddr for secondary >> processes? > > I see now that the patch name is slightly misleading. Maybe I shouldn’t pick such a catchy title. Let me clarify: As of DPDK 18.05, --base-virtaddr param for secondary process applications only affects that shadow memseg metadata that's not useful for anyone, but can still do a lot of harm. Hugepage memory in secondary processes is always mapped to the same addresses the primary process uses. > > D. > Hi Alejandro, To solve this problem, one possible approach would be to have maximum VA address, and allocate memory downwards, rather than upwards. Is that by any chance approximate contents of your RFC? :) -- Thanks, Anatoly