From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha)" Subject: Re: Unlinking hugepage backing file after initialiation Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:44:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150929161628.GA3810@redhat.com> <20150930003531-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E628DAB for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:44:32 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20150930003531-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US 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" What I heard is the following: A multi-process DPDK application, working ei= ther in master-worker or master-slave fashion, can potentially benefit by k= eeping the backing files in hugetlbfs. However, it is does not work today a= s the pages are cleaned and added back when the application restarts. On th= e other hand, for a single process application there is actually no benefit= keeping the pages around. Therefore, I was wondering if we can make this configurable by passing a co= mmand line argument that will either unlink or keep the backing files. -- - Thanks char * (*shesha) (uint64_t cache, uint8_t F00D) { return 0x0000C0DE; } From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:35 PM To: Cisco Employee > Cc: "Xie, Huawei" >, "dev= @dpdk.org" > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Unlinking hugepage backing file after initialiation On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:50:00PM +0000, shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha) = wrote: Sure. Then, is there any real reason why the backing files should not be unlinked ? AFAIK qemu unlinks them already. -- MST