From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914358DED for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 15:07:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 May 2018 06:07:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,378,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="49190320" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2018 06:07:45 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.235]) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.51]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 8 May 2018 06:07:45 -0700 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: "hom.sepanta@gmail.com" CC: "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] Using memzone for sharing memory Thread-Index: AQHT5rCtgfyzPhmvf0KEcfbeLzS48aQmQxGA Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 13:07:44 +0000 Message-ID: <7C6873AE-1D3C-4A2F-B69E-EBF52AC76DCC@intel.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.78.108] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <67520DBC71A051489DAB73594132BE40@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Using memzone for sharing memory X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 13:07:48 -0000 > On May 6, 2018, at 7:04 AM, hom.sepanta@gmail.com wrote: >=20 > Hi everyone. I was wondering if the virtual address of memzones remains t= he > same across different processes. The memzone docs mention the same physic= al > address is returned but there is no mention of the virtual address. A > little bit of testing makes it look like that the virtual address is also > the same, but I can't be sure about that. Normally the virtual address of memory shared between to processes could be= different it just depends on the kernel and other factors. >=20 > The interesting thing about this for me is that if the same virtual addre= ss > is always returned, I could store and share complex data structures with > internal pointers in a memzone. I have seen this to be true, but you can not count on the fact for all case= s. >=20 > Does this sound possible? If using memzones is not the correct approach f= or > this, could you suggest another course of action? You have to use offsets in the shared memory or some other method to determ= ine the correct virtual address in each process. >=20 > Cheers, > Mostafa Regards, Keith