From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BCE239 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:04:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jul 2018 04:04:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,397,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="247883024" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.86]) ([10.237.220.86]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2018 04:04:38 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ravi1.Kumar@amd.com References: <40cf48703f5fae8af8c31dcc8a1a1ecb0b151d27.1532426170.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <7333019.QUcIvQh70r@xps> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:04:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7333019.QUcIvQh70r@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: reduce memory requirements 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: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:04:48 -0000 On 24-Jul-18 11:23 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 24/07/2018 12:03, Anatoly Burakov: >> It has been reported that current memory limitations do not work >> well on an 8-socket machines in default configuration when big >> page sizes are used [1]. >> >> Fix it by reducing memory amount reserved by DPDK by default to >> 32G per page size per NUMA node. This translates to allowing us >> to reserve 32G per page size per NUMA node on 8 nodes with 2 >> page sizes. >> >> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108071.html >> >> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov >> --- >> >> Notes: >> We could have increased CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEM_MB but this would've >> brought other potential problems due to increased memory >> preallocation, and secondary process initialization is flaky >> enough as it is. I am willing to bet that 32G per page size is >> more than enough for the majority of use cases, and any >> application with bigger requirements could adjust config options >> itself. > [...] >> -CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_PER_TYPE=32768 >> -CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEM_MB_PER_TYPE=131072 >> +CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_PER_TYPE=16384 >> +CONFIG_RTE_MAX_MEM_MB_PER_TYPE=32768 > > Ideally, it should be a run-time option. > It can be, yes, and this can be worked on for next release. However, we also need to have good default values that work across all supported platforms. -- Thanks, Anatoly