[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] memory: do not use base-virtaddr in secondary processes
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Tue Jun 19 11:24:15 CEST 2018
On 18-Jun-18 9:12 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alejandro Lucero [mailto:alejandro.lucero at netronome.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:33 PM
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX
>> <dariuszx.stojaczyk at intel.com <mailto:dariuszx.stojaczyk at intel.com> >
>> 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
More information about the dev
mailing list