All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk@nvidia.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	"Xueming(Steven) Li" <xuemingl@nvidia.com>,
	david.marchand@redhat.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Zeroing out memory on free
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:26:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1730403.MaGYrl2sIR@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CH0PR12MB50915776AB7F52C39590B487B9C59@CH0PR12MB5091.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

24/08/2021 12:58, Dmitry Kozlyuk:
> Hello,
> 
> Me and Xueming are wondering why DPDK clears the memory on free
> and not only when it's explicitly requested (rte_zmalloc).
> 
> It's been so for a while:
> 
> commit ea0bddbd14e68fb42d9774bc3543e51b510e48d3
> Author: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> Date:   Tue Jul 5 12:01:15 2016 +0100
> 
>     mem: zero out memory on free
>     
>     Since commit fafcc11985a2, memzones are not guaranteed to be zeroed out.
>     This could potentially cause issues as applications might have been
>     relying on the allocated memory being zeroed out.
>     
>     On init all allocated memory is zeroed by the kernel, so by zeroing out
>     memory on free, all available dpdk memory is always zeroed.
>     
>     Fixes: fafcc11985a2 ("mem: rework memzone to be allocated by malloc")
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> 
> At present this explanation doesn't look satisfying:
> 1. Memzone API does not promise they will be zeroed out.
>    Memzones are mostly used for DMA, so their content will likely be overwritten.
> 2. If application assumptions are wrong, DPDK should not try to fix it.
>    Memory manager poisons memory in debug mode to detect such errors.
> 
> Zeroing memory is quite slow, but in many cases unneeded.
> It looks attractive to only do it in rte_zmalloc().
> AFAIK what prohibits moving memset() there unconditionally
> is that the kernel already gives us cleared pages,
> so the first allocation of each piece of memory would do unnecessary work.
> This can be solved by giving the user a choice in EAL options

No I don't think it should be workarounded in EAL options.

> or with more elaborate tracking of memory dirtiness in MM.

Looks a good idea.

> Are there any other reasons why clearing is done the current way?

I think the only reason was to avoid doing reset for the first usage.
You're right it is not optimal when reusing memory
without any zeroing need.



  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-25  7:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-24 10:58 [dpdk-dev] Zeroing out memory on free Dmitry Kozlyuk
2021-08-25  7:26 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-08-25 11:47   ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-08-25 12:30     ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1730403.MaGYrl2sIR@thomas \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dkozlyuk@nvidia.com \
    --cc=xuemingl@nvidia.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.