Hi Anatoly, I don't need a secondary process.
I tried out Julien's suggestion and set the param 'RTE_MAX_MEM_MB' value to 8192 (the original value was over 500K). This works as a cap. The virtual size dropped down to less than 8G. So this seems to be working for me. I have a few queries/concerns though. Is it safe to reduce the RTE_MAX_MEM_MB to such a low value ? Can I reduce it further ? What will be the impact of doing so ? Will it limit the maximum size of mbuf pool which I create ? Regards, Siddarth On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:53 PM Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote: > On 30-Jan-20 8:51 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM siddarth rai <sid...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have been using DPDK 19.08 and I notice the process VSZ is huge. > >> > >> I tried running the test PMD. It takes 64G VSZ and if I use the > >> '--in-memory' option it takes up to 188G. > >> > >> Is there anyway to disable allocation of such huge VSZ in DPDK ? > > > > *Disclaimer* I don't know the arcanes of the mem subsystem. > > > > I suppose this is due to the memory allocator in dpdk that reserves > > unused virtual space (for memory hotplug + multiprocess). > > Yes, that's correct. In order to guarantee memory reservation succeeding > at all times, we need to reserve all possible memory in advance. > Otherwise we may end up in a situation where primary process has > allocated a page, but the secondary can't map it because the address > space is already occupied by something else. > > > > > If this is the case, maybe we could do something to enhance the > > situation for applications that won't care about multiprocess. > > Like inform dpdk that the application won't use multiprocess and skip > > those reservations. > > You're welcome to try this, but i assure you, avoiding these > reservations is a lot of work, because you'd be adding a yet another > path to an already overly complex allocator :) > > > > > Or another idea would be to limit those reservations to what is passed > > via --socket-limit. > > > > Anatoly? > > I have a patchset in the works that does this and was planning to submit > it to 19.08, but things got in the way and it's still sitting there > collecting bit rot. This may be reason enough to resurrect it and finish > it up :) > > > > > > > > > -- > > David Marchand > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Anatoly >
