Venky, This also applies to mbuf pools. Inside of the openvswitch.org patches we allocate mbuf pools for a port, but we are unable to free them back when the port is removed.
One other request (maybe it is there, and I?m unaware), is the ability to dynamically add / remove a physical port to DPDK. Basically we should be able to reassign on the fly a port from the kernel to DPDK, and vice versa (of course with the caveat that all structures be released in both environments and a port reinitialized). Gerald On 5/7/14, 7:01 AM, "Venkatesan, Venky" <venky.venkatesan at intel.com> wrote: >Olivier, > >We should look at how to make the memseg capable of doing alloc/free >(including re-assembly of fragments) after the 1.7 release. Is that >something you are considering doing (or are there any other DPDKers >considering this), or should I look at putting together a patch for that? > >Regards, >-Venky > >-----Original Message----- >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:39 AM >To: Igor Ryzhov; dev at dpdk.org >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RTE Ring removing > >Hi Igor, > >On 05/07/2014 09:54 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote: >> I noticed that in Memzone realization there is a special global >> variable "free_memseg" containing pointers on free memory segments. >> An memzone reserve function just finst the best segment for allocation >> from this "free_memseg" variable. >> >> So I think there is a possibility to unreserve already reserved memory >> back to "free_memseg", and impossibility of unreserving memory is just >> because there is no function for that, not because it is impossible in >> principle. >> Am I right? Or there are any restrictions? > >I think that implementing a freeing of memory segment is feasible, but it >would require some work to properly merge freed zones to avoid memory >fragmentation. > >Another solution is to allocate/free rings in standard memory (malloc for >instance) instead of rte_memzones. Let me know if the patches I've just >sent on the mailing list solves your issue. > >By the way, I plan to do the same thing for mempools in the coming weeks >but there is much more work. > >Regards, >Olivier >
