From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: Running DPDK as an unprivileged user
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2017 01:17:33 +0100
Message-ID: <2179627.cU6MQpMJOa@xps>
References: <1483044080.11975.1.camel@intel.com>
 <1483565664.9482.3.camel@intel.com>
 <6c6766f0-145e-9354-e275-d107d69173c3@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, "Walker,
 Benjamin" <benjamin.walker@intel.com>, sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com,
 anatoly.burakov@intel.com
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DB81B2FA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun,  5 Nov 2017 01:17:37 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <6c6766f0-145e-9354-e275-d107d69173c3@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi, restarting an old topic,

05/01/2017 16:52, Tan, Jianfeng:
> On 1/5/2017 5:34 AM, Walker, Benjamin wrote:
> >>> Note that this
> >>> probably means that using uio on recent kernels is subtly
> >>> broken and cannot be supported going forward because there
> >>> is no uio mechanism to pin the memory.
> >>>
> >>> The first open question I have is whether DPDK should allow
> >>> uio at all on recent (4.x) kernels. My current understanding
> >>> is that there is no way to pin memory and hugepages can now
> >>> be moved around, so uio would be unsafe. What does the
> >>> community think here?
> 
> Back to this question, removing uio support in DPDK seems a little 
> overkill to me. Can we just document it down? Like, firstly warn users 
> do not invoke migrate_pages() or move_pages() to a DPDK process; as for 
> the kcompactd daemon and some more cases (like compaction could be 
> triggered by alloc_pages()), could we just recommend to disable 
> CONFIG_COMPACTION?

We really need to better document the limitations of UIO.
May we have some suggestions here?

> Another side, how does vfio pin those memory? Through memlock (from code 
> in vfio_pin_pages())? So why not just mlock those hugepages?

Good question. Why not mlock the hugepages?