From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Dynamic memzones Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:05:31 +0200 Message-ID: <8355871.YHnrBBomrZ@xps13> References: <1436948793-12867-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <1436977948-589-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (mail-wg0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161AAC320 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:06:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wgxm20 with SMTP id m20so56682531wgx.3 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:06:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1436977948-589-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2015-07-15 17:32, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > Current implemetation allows reserving/creating memzones but not the opposite > (unreserve/free). This affects mempools and other memzone based objects. > > From my point of view, implementing free functionality for memzones would look > like malloc over memsegs. > Thus, this approach moves malloc inside eal (which in turn removes a circular > dependency), where malloc heaps are composed of memsegs. > We keep both malloc and memzone APIs as they are, but memzones allocate its > memory by calling malloc_heap_alloc. > Some extra functionality is required in malloc to allow for boundary constrained > memory requests. > In summary, currently malloc is based on memzones, and with this approach > memzones are based on malloc. Applied, thanks for the big rework.