From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA871B2F7 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:32:18 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2018 01:32:16 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,511,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="174954845" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.71]) ([10.237.220.71]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2018 01:32:12 -0800 To: Yongseok Koh Cc: "Walker, Benjamin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "andras.kovacs@ericsson.com" , "Wiles, Keith" , "Richardson, Bruce" , =?UTF-8?Q?N=c3=a9lio_Laranjeiro?= , Shahaf Shuler , "Xueming(Steven) Li" References: <1513892309.2658.80.camel@intel.com> <1514308764.2658.93.camel@intel.com> <20180202192832.GA42096@yongseok-MBP.local> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:32:12 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 00/23] Dynamic memory allocation for DPDK 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: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:32:19 -0000 On 14-Feb-18 2:01 AM, Yongseok Koh wrote: > >> On Feb 5, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >> >> Thanks for your feedback, good to hear we're on the right track. I already have a prototype implementation of this working, due for v1 submission :) > > Anatoly, > > One more suggestion. Currently, when populating mempool, there's a chance to > have multiple chunks if system memory is highly fragmented. However, with your > new design, it is unlikely to happen unless the system is really low on memory. > Allocation will be dynamic and page by page. With your v2, you seemed to make > minimal changes on mempool. If allocation fails, it will still try to gather > fragments from malloc_heap until it acquires enough objects and the resultant > mempool will have multiple chunks. But like I mentioned, it is very unlikely and > this will only happen when the system is short of memory. Is my understanding > correct? > > If so, how about making a change to drop the case where mempool has multiple > chunks? > > Thanks > Yongseok > Hi Yongseok, I would still like to keep it, as it may impact low memory cases such as containers. -- Thanks, Anatoly