Agree with Anatoly - I would much rather not change legacy option behaviour that has existed for a while, especially when --socket-mem is available to do exactly what is needed.
-Venky -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Burakov, Anatoly Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:54 AM To: Burakov, Anatoly; David Marchand; dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] eal: change default per socket memory allocation Hi again David/Didier, > Can I suggest to do an RTE_MAX between (internal_config.memory - > total_mem) and (internal_config.memory * cpu_per_socket[socket_id] + > rte_lcore_count() - 1) / rte_lcore_count() ? I don't think it's a good > idea to go over the requested amount. Let the last core have a chance > of reserving slightly less memory than other cores, but don't let it > go over the limit. If specific memory constraints are required, let > the user use --socket-mem instead. Sorry for spamming, but now that I think of it, I don't believe this change makes much sense. If the user wants memory on specific sockets, there's already --socket-mem option. If the user doesn't care, there's -m option, which gives the user memory from whatever sockets it is available. With this change applied, DPDK will fail when run with -m switch under certain circumstances (e.g. cores from socket 0 present in the coremask but no memory left on socket 0), which is quite the opposite of a simple "give me n megs, I don't care where it comes from" option -m is providing. Best regards, Anatoly Burakov DPDK SW Engineer -------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Shannon Limited Registered in Ireland Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare Registered Number: 308263 Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare
