22/07/2021 23:06, John Levon: > 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?
Yes please add some examples of directories explaining the issue you hit. > 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? Yes > > and the unit test also seem necessary. > > You're talking about app/test/test_eal_flags.c or something else? Yes Thanks
