On 2014/12/8 19:38, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:37:19AM +0000, Qiu, Michael wrote: >> On 12/8/2014 11:00 AM, Neil Horman wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:46:51AM +0000, Qiu, Michael wrote: >>>> On 12/5/2014 11:25 PM, Neil Horman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:02:33PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:22:05AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:31:47PM +0800, Chao Zhu wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2014/12/4 17:12, Michael Qiu wrote: >>>>>>>>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c:324:4: error: comparison >>>>>>>>> is always false due to limited range of data type >>>>>>>>> [-Werror=type-limits] >>>>>>>>> || (hugepage_sz == RTE_PGSIZE_16G)) { >>>>>>>>> ^ >>>>>>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c(461): error #2259: non-pointer >>>>>>>>> conversion from "long long" to "void *" may lose significant bits >>>>>>>>> RTE_PTR_ALIGN_CEIL((uintptr_t)addr, RTE_PGSIZE_16M); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This was introuduced by commit b77b5639: >>>>>>>>> mem: add huge page sizes for IBM Power >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The root cause is that size_t and uintptr_t are 32-bit in i686 >>>>>>>>> platform, but RTE_PGSIZE_16M and RTE_PGSIZE_16G are always 64-bit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Define RTE_PGSIZE_16G only in 64 bit platform to avoid >>>>>>>>> this issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Qiu <michael.qiu at intel.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> v3 ---> v2 >>>>>>>>> Change RTE_PGSIZE_16G from ULL to UL >>>>>>>>> to keep all entries consistent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> V2 ---> v1 >>>>>>>>> Change two type entries to one, and >>>>>>>>> leave RTE_PGSIZE_16G only valid for >>>>>>>>> 64-bit platform >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> NACK, this is the wrong way to fix this problem. Pagesizes are >>>>>>> independent of >>>>>>> architecutre. While a system can't have a hugepage size that exceeds >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> virtual address limit, theres no need to do per-architecture special >>>>>>> casing of >>>>>>> page sizes here. Instead of littering the code with ifdef RTE_ARCH_64 >>>>>>> everytime you want to check a page size, just convert the size_t to a >>>>>>> uint64_t >>>>>>> and you can allow all of the enumerated page types on all >>>>>>> architecutres, and >>>>>>> save yourself some ifdeffing in the process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Neil >>>>>> While I get your point, I find it distasteful to use a uint64_t for >>>>>> memory sizes, >>>>>> when there is the size_t type defined for that particular purpose. >>>>>> However, I suppose that reducing the number of #ifdefs compared to using >>>>>> the >>>>>> "correct" datatypes for objects is a more practical optino - however >>>>>> distastful >>>>>> I find it. >>>>> size_t isn't defined for memory sizes in the sense that we're using them >>>>> here. >>>>> size_t is meant to address the need for a type to describe object sizes >>>>> on a >>>>> particular system, and it itself is sized accordingly (32 bits on a 32 >>>>> bit arch, >>>>> 64 on 64), so that you can safely store a size that the system in >>>>> question might >>>>> maximally allocate/return. In this situation we are describing memory >>>>> sizes >>>>> that might occur no a plurality of arches, and so size_t is inappropriate >>>>> because it as a type is not sized for anything other than the arch it is >>>>> being >>>>> built for. The pragmatic benefits of ennumerating page sizes in a single >>>>> canonical location far outweigh the desire to use a misappropriated type >>>>> to >>>>> describe them. >>>> Neil, >>>> >>>> This patch fix two compile issues, and we need to do *dpdk testing >>>> affairs*, if it is blocked in build stage, we can do *nothing* for >>>> testing. >>>> >>>> I've get you mind and your concern. But we should take care of changing >>>> the type of "hugepage_sz", because lots of places using it. >>>> >>>> Would you mind if we consider this as hot fix, and we can post a better >>>> fix later(like in dpdk 2.0)? Otherwise all test cycle are blocked. >>>> >>> Honestly, no. Because intels testing schedule shouldn't drive the >>> inclusion of >>> upstream fixes. Also, I'm not asking for a major redesign of anything, I'm >>> asking for a proper fix for a very straightforward problem. I've attached >>> the >>> proper fix below. >>> >>> Regards >>> Neil >> We test dpdk upstream now as 1,8 rc2 and rc3 released :) >> > Yes, I don't take issue with you testing dpdk, on the contrary, I appreciate > it. > What I take issue with is that you are asserting that the blockage of your > testing is reason to ignore a proper fix an issue, rather than some > substandard > one.
Agree :) >> I know that what you mean. but lots of please using "hugepage_sz" do you >> confirm it will not affect other issue? >> > 5. There are 5 placees that use hugepage_sz, as the patch below indicates. > Thats no alot. > > Also, I take issue with the assertion that this patch creates no additional > problems. I'm sure it creates no additional problems that your patch wouldn't > also create, arguably less. If we were really being pragmatic here, I would > point out that this problem was caused by the fact that support for an entire > new architecture was integrated during the -rc phase of a release, which seems > extreemely risky to me, and as such, the most appropriate thing to do would be > to back support for ppc out until after the 1.8 release when it could be > properly tested. Instead we are slamming in hacked up fixes that throw arch > specific ifdefs througout the code. > >> On other hand, we use 32 bit address in 32 bit platform for better >> performance(some of places also use uintptr_t for address check and >> alignment). >> > This has nothing to do with address bus size. Actually, it does, this is one of what I'm fixed. But it also introduced by support Power Arch. Other places I have not check yet. Anyway, I will verify your solution, and to see any potential issues. Thanks Michael >> And it should not acceptable in 32 bit platform to use 64-bit platform >> specification affairs(like RTE_PGSIZE_16G). >> > Ok, so add a single arch specific runtime check during hugepage mapping to > exit > on the 16G size use on 32 bit systems. Thats a fair and reasonable thing to > do, > though I think the hugepage remap is already ifdeffed for 54 bit arches only. > > Neil > >