On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:29:45PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:00 PM John Levon <john.le...@nutanix.com> wrote: > > > > get_hugepage_dir() was implemented in such a way that a --huge-dir > > option had to exactly match the mountpoint, but there's no reason for > > this restriction. Fix the implementation to allow a sub-directory within > > a suitable hugetlbfs mountpoint to be specified, preferring the closest > > match. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Levon <john.le...@nutanix.com> > > This change in EAL hugetlbfs discovery is too dangerous to be taken after > -rc1.
Sure. > Could you give some usecases/examples on why this change is needed? Would you like me to expand the commit message? I had hoped it was clear enough, but I suppose not. Simply put, DPDK above is assuming its the only user of hugepages on the system - including clear_hugedir(). That is certainly not the case for our use cases. > Updating the documentation https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/linux_gsg/linux_eal_parameters.html """ --huge-dir <path to hugetlbfs directory> Use specified hugetlbfs directory instead of autodetected ones. """ That is, it already says "directory", not "mount". You'd like something additional saying it can be below a mount point? > and the unit test also seem necessary. You're talking about app/test/test_eal_flags.c or something else? thanks, john
