From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: memory allocation requirements
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:12:42 +0200
Message-ID: <5710946A.9080001@6wind.com>
References: <1500486.8lzTDt5Q91@xps13> <570FAD3E.6040509@6wind.com>
 <570FB996.4070801@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1804F530C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:12:51 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <570FB996.4070801@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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,

On 04/14/2016 05:39 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
>> Just to mention that some evolutions [1] are planned in mempool in
>> 16.07, allowing to populate a mempool with several chunks of memory,
>> and still ensuring that the objects are physically contiguous. It
>> completely removes the need to allocate a big virtually contiguous
>> memory zone (and also physically contiguous if not using
>> rte_mempool_create_xmem(), which is probably the case in most of
>> the applications).
>>
>> Knowing this, the code that remaps the hugepages to get the largest
>> possible physically contiguous zone probably becomes useless after
>> the mempool series. Changing it to only one mmap(file) in hugetlbfs
>> per NUMA socket would clearly simplify this part of EAL.
>>
> 
> Are you suggesting to make those changes after the mempool series
> has been applied but keeping the current memzone/malloc behavior?

I wonder if the default property of memzone/malloc which is to
allocate physically contiguous memory shouldn't be dropped. It could
remain optional, knowing that allocating a physically contiguous zone
larger than a page cannot be guaranteed.

But yes, I'm in favor of doing these changes in eal_memory.c, it would
drop a lot a complex code (all rtemap* stuff), and today I'm not seeing
any big issue of doing it... maybe we'll find one during the
discussion :)

Regards,
Olivier