> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:17 PM
> To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Ferruh Yigit
> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org; arybche...@solarflare.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] add IOVA = VA support in KNI
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:38:53AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > On 15-Jul-19 5:54 AM, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > > > > > > > > (also, i don't really like the name NO_PAGE_BOUND since
> > > > > > > > > in memzone API there's a "bounded memzone" allocation
> > > > > > > > > API, and this flag's name reads like objects would not
> > > > > > > > > be bounded by page size, not that they won't cross page
> > > > > > > > > boundary)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No strong opinion for the name. What name you suggest?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about something like MEMPOOL_F_NO_PAGE_SPLIT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In summary, Change wrt existing patch"
> > > > > > - Change NO_PAGE_BOUND to MEMPOOL_F_NO_PAGE_SPLIT
> > > > > > - Set this flag in rte_pktmbuf_pool_create () when
> > > > > rte_eal_has_hugepages() ||
> > > > > > rte_malloc_heap_socket_is_external(socket_id))
> > > > >
> > > > > If we are to have a special KNI allocation API, would we even need
> > > > > that?
> > > >
> > > > Not need this change in rte_pktmbuf_pool_create () if we introduce
> > > > a new rte_kni_pktmbuf_pool_create () API.
> > >
> > > Ferruh, Olivier, Anatoly,
> > >
> > > Any objection to create new rte_kni_pktmbuf_pool_create () API to
> > > embedded MEMPOOL_F_NO_PAGE_SPLIT flag requirement for KNI + IOVA
> as
> > > VA
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As long as we all are aware of what that means and agree with that
> > consequence (namely, separate codepaths for KNI and other PMD's) then
> > i have no specific objections.
>
> Sorry for the late feedback.
>
> I think we can change the default behavior of mempool populate(), to prevent
> objects from being accross 2 pages, except if the size of the object is
> bigger than
> the size of the page. This is already what is done in
> rte_mempool_op_calc_mem_size_default() when we want to estimate the
> amount of memory needed to allocate N objects.
>
> This would avoid the introduction of a specific API to allocate packets for
> kni,
> and a specific mempool flag.
>
> About the problem of 9K mbuf mentionned by Anatoly, could we imagine a
> check in kni code, that just returns an error "does not work with
> size(mbuf) > size(page)" ?
>
Yes, change in default behavior avoids new APIs or flags.
Two minor changes on top of above suggestions.
1) Can flag(NO_PAGE_SPLIT) be retained.?, sequence is like, flag is set by
default in rte_mempool_populate_default()
and later it can be cleared based on obj_per_page in
rte_mempool_op_calc_mem_size_default(). I do not see specific
requirement of these flag apart from handling above sequence.
2) For problems of 9k mbuf, I think that check could be addressed in kni lib(in
rte_kni_init and return error).
> Thanks,
> Olivier
