> >On 21/05/2015 17:59, Harish Patil wrote: >> Hello dpdk-dev, >> >> I understand that the reserved memzones cannot be freed, as mentioned in >> the DPDK specs. But I would like to know why? Is there any limitations? >There should be a few threads in the mailing list related to this topic. >Last that comes to mind: >http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-April/016501.html > >Short answer is, it has not been implemented yet. >> If the memory is not freed/returned, then can it be reused for >>subsequent >> allocations without re-init (i.e. with same memzone name)? >> We use it for allocating DMA?ble memory. >It is up to the application to manage the use/re-use of memzones. >By the way, would maybe rte_malloc memory be more suitable than memzones >for your application? >You can retrieve the physical address of memory allcoated by rte_malloc >with rte_malloc_virt2phy. >> Secondly, there was a related discussion on this in the following email >> thread: >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-July/004456.html >> >> Do we plan to incorporate that changes? >There is some ongoing work related to freeing memzones: >http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017470.html > >Feel free to comment on it. > >Sergio >> Thanks, >> Harish >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >
Thanks very much Sergio. I will take a look at your suggested links and get back to you shortly. Thanks, Harish ________________________________ This message and any attached documents contain information from the sending company or its parent company(s), subsidiaries, divisions or branch offices that may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
