> -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Lucero [mailto:alejandro.luc...@netronome.com] > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:33 PM > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Stojaczyk, DariuszX > <dariuszx.stojac...@intel.com <mailto:dariuszx.stojac...@intel.com> > > wrote: > > Can you point me out to an NFP guide or some code that describes > this in more detail? > > > > As I said, I'm working on a RFC. I will send something shortly. But I could > give > you an advance: the hugepages needs to be mapped below certain virtual > address, 1TB, and I'm afraid that includes the primary and also the > secondary processes. At least if any process can send or receive packets > to/from a NFP. > >
Thanks, I'm pretty sure we're safe, then. > > If we're talking about base-virtaddr for hugepages, then that's always > inherited from the primary process, regardless of what base-virtaddr is > supplied to the secondary. > > > > > But, is not your patch avoiding to use that base-virtaddr for secondary > processes? I see now that the patch name is slightly misleading. Maybe I shouldn’t pick such a catchy title. Let me clarify: As of DPDK 18.05, --base-virtaddr param for secondary process applications only affects that shadow memseg metadata that's not useful for anyone, but can still do a lot of harm. Hugepage memory in secondary processes is always mapped to the same addresses the primary process uses. D.
