[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 8/8] eal/windows: implement basic memory management

[Dmitry Kozlyuk]

On Wed, 13 May 2020 09:09:22 +0000
Fady Bader <fady at mellanox.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozliuk at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:43 AM
> > To: Fady Bader <fady at mellanox.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Dmitry Malloy (MESHCHANINOV)
> > <dmitrym at microsoft.com>; Narcisa Ana Maria Vasile
> > <Narcisa.Vasile at microsoft.com>; Tal Shnaiderman
> > <talshn at mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>;
> > Harini Ramakrishnan <harini.ramakrishnan at microsoft.com>; Omar
> > Cardona <ocardona at microsoft.com>; Pallavi Kadam
> > <pallavi.kadam at intel.com>; Ranjit Menon <ranjit.menon at intel.com>;
> > John McNamara <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Marko Kovacevic
> > <marko.kovacevic at intel.com>; Anatoly Burakov
> > <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] eal/windows: implement basic memory
> > management
> > 
> > On Wed, 13 May 2020 08:24:12 +0000
> > Fady Bader <fady at mellanox.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > I'm using your latest memory management patchset and getting an
> > > error in the function VirualAlloc2 in eal_mem_commit, error code:
> > > 0x57 (ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER). I'm using Windows server 2019
> > > build  
> > 17763,  
> > > and followed the steps to Grant *Lock pages in memory* Privilege.
> > >
> > > The parameters that are sent to the function are:
> > > GetCurrentProcess() is -1.
> > > requested_addr is 0x0000025b`93800000.
> > > Size is 0x200000 (sysInfo.dwAllocationGranularity is 0x10000).
> > > Flags is 0x20007000.
> > > Also, Socket_id is 0.
> > >
> > > The call stack is:
> > > 00 dpdk_mempool_test!eal_mem_commit+0x253
> > > 01 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_seg+0x1b0
> > > 02 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_seg_walk+0x2a1
> > > 03 dpdk_mempool_test!rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe+0x81
> > > 04 dpdk_mempool_test!eal_memalloc_alloc_seg_bulk+0x1a5
> > > 05 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_pages_on_heap+0x13a
> > > 06 dpdk_mempool_test!try_expand_heap_primary+0x1dc
> > > 07 dpdk_mempool_test!try_expand_heap+0xf5
> > > 08 dpdk_mempool_test!alloc_more_mem_on_socket+0x693
> > > 09 dpdk_mempool_test!malloc_heap_alloc_on_heap_id+0x2a7
> > > 0a dpdk_mempool_test!malloc_heap_alloc+0x184
> > > 0b dpdk_mempool_test!malloc_socket+0xf9
> > > 0c dpdk_mempool_test!rte_malloc_socket+0x39
> > > 0d dpdk_mempool_test!rte_zmalloc_socket+0x31
> > > 0e dpdk_mempool_test!rte_zmalloc+0x2d
> > > 0f dpdk_mempool_test!rte_mempool_create_empty+0x1c9
> > > 10 dpdk_mempool_test!rte_mempool_create+0xf8  
> > 
> > Hi Fady,
> > 
> > Can you share the code snippet causing this?
> >   
> 
> [snip]
[snip]

I meant the code of the application that calls rte_mempool_create(). Or
is it one of the DPDK test applications?

--
Dmitry Kozlyuk