[dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v11 2/4] eal: add legacy kni option
jerinjacobk at gmail.com
Wed Oct 23 12:12:39 CEST 2019
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:01 PM Vamsi Krishna Attunuru
<vattunuru at marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> Can you please explain the problems in using kni dedicated mbuf alloc routines while enabling kni iova=va mode. Please see the below discussion with Andrew. He wanted to know the problems in having newer APIs.
While waiting for the Ferruh reply, I would like to summarise the
# In order to make KNI work with IOVA as VA, We need to make sure
mempool pool _object_ should not span across two huge pages
# This problem can be fixed by, either of:
a) Introduce a flag in mempool to define this constraint, so that,
when only needed, this constraint enforced and this is in line
with existing semantics of addressing such problems in mempool
b) Instead of creating a flag, Make this behavior by default in
mempool for IOVA as VA case
b1) There is no need for specific mempool_create for KNI.
b2) Not align with existing mempool API semantics
b3) There will be a trivial amount of memory waste as we can not
allocate from the edge. Considering the normal huge
page memory size is 1G or 512MB this not a real issue.
c) Make IOVA as PA when KNI kernel module is loaded
c1) Doing option (a) would call for new KNI specific mempool create
API i.e existing KNI applications need a one-line change in
application to make it work with release 19.11 or later.
c2) Driver which needs RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_IOVA_AS_VA can not work with KNI
c3) Need root privilege to run KNI as IOVA as PA need root privilege
For the next year, we expect applications to work 19.11 without any
code change. My personal opinion to make go with option (a)
and update the release notes to document the change any it simple
The selection of (a) vs (b) is between KNI and Mempool maintainers.
Could we please reach a consensus? Or can we discuss this TB meeting?
We are going back and forth on this feature on for the last 3
releases. Now that, we solved all the technical problems, please help
to decide (a) vs (b) to make forward progress.
> I wanted to clarify ourselves about the need of mem pool patch(V11 1/4) and where to fit the fix(newer APIs or fix in mempool lib) before I start reworking the patches.
> A Vamsi
> > snipped
> > >>
> > >> This is new feature, who want to use it adding a specific flag makes
> > >> more sense to me than all old users have to add the flag.
> > >
> > > Ferruh suggested to have a flag for enabling these new feature and also not
> > interested in having newer mempool alloc APIs for KNI(see V10 review
> > comments). Before reworking on the flag changes, I would like check with you
> > whether the same flag can be used in mempool lib for checking and fulfilling the
> > mempool page boundary requirement (mempool patch v11 1/4), by doing so, it
> > can avoid newer exported APIs both in mempool and KNI lib. Anyways, these
> > mempool requirement can be addressed with Olivier's below patches.
> > >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.dpdk.org
> > > _project_dpdk_list_-3Fseries-
> > 3D5624&d=DwICaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&
> > > r=WllrYaumVkxaWjgKto6E_rtDQshhIhik2jkvzFyRhW8&m=tCO-
> > 8E27vdyIVMm_35Qv6K
> > > -OwGCIobWI0H9DGGBm-gc&s=9aLHS9Og5L0uhuLGFAuQ9NAT3-
> > hlFmtc9RrrSbLQC00&e=
> > >
> > > When those patches are merged, flag check can be removed.
> > It is really hard to follow, sorry.
> > Is it really a problem to have KNI switcher to enable new behaviour and
> > document it that dedicated function should be used to allocate mbufs?
> > Andrew.
> > > Regards
> > > A Vamsi
More information about the dev