[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 02/21] mem: allow memseg lists to be marked as external

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 27-Sep-18 12:12 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> On Thursday 27 September 2018 04:38 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 27-Sep-18 12:03 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>>> On Thursday 27 September 2018 04:10 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
>>>> When we allocate and use DPDK memory, we need to be able to
>>>> differentiate between DPDK hugepage segments and segments that
>>>> were made part of DPDK but are externally allocated. Add such
>>>> a property to memseg lists.
>>>>
>>>> This breaks the ABI, so bump the EAL library ABI version and
>>>> document the change in release notes. This also breaks a few
>>>> internal assumptions about memory contiguousness, so adjust
>>>> malloc code in a few places.
>>>>
>>>> All current calls for memseg walk functions were adjusted to
>>>> ignore external segments where it made sense.
>>>>
>>>> Mempools is a special case, because we may be asked to allocate
>>>> a mempool on a specific socket, and we need to ignore all page
>>>> sizes on other heaps or other sockets. Previously, this
>>>> assumption of knowing all page sizes was not a problem, but it
>>>> will be now, so we have to match socket ID with page size when
>>>> calculating minimum page size for a mempool.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>
>>> Specifically for bus/fslmc perspective and generically for others:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually, this patch may need some further adjustment, since it makes 
>> assumption about not wanting to map external memory for DMA.
>>
>> Specifically - there's an fslmc dma map function that now skips 
>> external memory segments. Are you sure that's how it's supposed to be?
>>
> 
> I thought over that.
> For now yes. If we need to map external memory, and there is an event 
> that would be called back, it should be handled separately. So, for 
> example, a PMD level API to handle such requests from applications.

Well, technically such an event is already available, now that external 
memory allocations trigger mem events :)

> 
> The point is that how the external memory is handled is use-case 
> specific - the need to have its events reported back is definitely 
> there, but its handling is still a grey area.
> 
> Once the patches make their way in, I can always come back and tune that.
> 

OK, fair enough.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly