[dpdk-users] DPDK-20.11 and HUGEPAGES

[Templin (US), Fred L]

Thank you for your message. I will post the log after I return from visiting
the lab where the test environment is hosted later today.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huai-En Tseng [mailto:the at csie.io]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 7:05 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>
> Cc: users at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] DPDK-20.11 and HUGEPAGES
> 
> 
> Hi, DPDK can be executed under 2MB hugepages scenario, and 1GB hugepages is not necessary.
> 
> Could you paste the log?
> 
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 18:12:40 +0000
> > From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>
> > To: "users at dpdk.org" <users at dpdk.org>
> > Subject: [dpdk-users] DPDK-20.11 and HUGEPAGES
> > Message-ID: <dcf5a411d1b446e99cf69f871f16a695 at boeing.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi, I have a test environment based on RHEL VMs that are run from a hypervisor
> > that I have no administrative or physical access to. My only administrative control
> > is by ssh into the running VMs over the network where at least I have sudo access.
> >
> > When I run my DPDK-20.11 application, it crashes because hugepages are not
> > configured. So, I allocated 2MB hugepages at runtime but the app still crashes
> > because there are no 1GB hugepages which on RHEL can only be set at boot time.
> >
> > I found instructions for setting RHEL boot parameters that will allocate 1GB
> > hugepages at boot time, but I have not tried it because I am concerned that
> > if I mess something up and reboot the VM it may never come back.
> >
> > So, I am wondering if DPDK-20.11 supports a "semi-huge" mode of operation
> > that allows it to run with only 2MB hugepages configured and no 1GB pages?
> > If so, what would be the way to set that up?
> >
> > I have also tried invoking DPDK with "--no-huge". My application starts fine,
> > but at runtime it crashes out of a DPDK API call while processing an mbuf
> > for a received packet. I can give more details about this if there is a chance
> > it could be debugged - or, is "--no-huge" problematic in general?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >