> -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:03 PM > To: Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Gagandeep Singh > <[email protected]>; dev <[email protected]>; Burakov, Anatoly > <[email protected]>; Olivier Matz <[email protected]>; > Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>; Nipun Gupta > <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; > Gavin Hu <[email protected]>; Bruce Richardson > <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change max hugepage sizes to 4 > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:28 PM Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > HI Thomas, > > > > > > > DPDK currently is supporting maximum 3 hugepage, sizes whereas > > > > > system can support more than this e.g. > > > > > 64K, 2M, 32M and 1G. > > > > > > > > You can mention ARM platform here, and that this issue starts with > > > > kernel 5.2 (and I would try to mention this in the title as well). > > > > This is better than an annotation that will be lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having these four hugepage sizes available to use by DPDK, which > > > > > is valid in case of '--in-memory' EAL option or using 4 separate > > > > > mount points for each hugepage size; > > > > > hugepage_info_init() API reports an error. > > > > > > > > Can you describe what is the impact from a user point of view > > > > rather than mentioning this internal function? > > > > > > Yes please, we need to understand how much it is critical. > > > Should we Cc [email protected] for backport? > > > Should it be merged at the last minute in 19.08? > > > > > > > VPP usages in-memory option. So, VPP on ARM with kernel 5.2 wont' work > without this patch. > > > > I have been looking at the changes in the linux kernel. > Can you pinpoint at the commit that changed this in 5.2? > > I can see a change in the code, but in 5.0, or maybe something changed in the > configuration. > > The patch you propose is not that risky (x86 supports two pagesizes, and max > hugepage is already at 3, so we know the code works fine with less than the > max). > Yet, I want to understand why this is urgent now. > > CCing other architecture maintainers.
Tested this change with an arm64 machine + 4.18 kernel. Looks OK. Tested-by: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > > > -- > David Marchand
