From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: Question about DPDK hugepage fd change Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:15:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <631579E3-02F5-4E12-8BE6-DDAC0AE2E4A7@oracle.com> <549A6EB0-6E19-460D-9BE5-52AA40003AF0@intel.com> <345EDE69-C416-405F-B88C-04EE8384D20F@oracle.com> <896AF59A-4CCF-42FE-B2D7-160C69427DD2@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Edwin Leung To: Iain Barker , "Wiles, Keith" Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D52D1B47C for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:15:35 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 06-Feb-19 1:57 PM, Iain Barker wrote: >> Can you use 1G hugepages instead of 2M pages or a combo of the two, not sure how dpdk handles having both in the system? > > Unfortunately, no. Some of our customer deployments are tenancies on KVM hosts and low-end appliances, which are not configurable by the end user to enable 1G huge pages. > > I think we are going to have to revert this patch set from our build, as I don't see any other alternative for using DPDK 18 whilst remaining compliant to the POSIX/glibc requirements. > Yep, apologies for that. I think a new command-line flag to disable this functionality should solve the issue, but we already have enough of those... -- Thanks, Anatoly