On 05/14/2018 07:06 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
Currently, populate_virt will check if mempool is already populated.
This will cause inability to reserve multi-chunk mempools if
contiguous memory is not a hard requirement, because if allocating
all-contiguous memory fails, mempool will retry with virtual addresses
and will call populate_virt. It seems that the original code never
anticipated more than one non-physically contiguous area.

Fix it by removing the check in populate virt. populate_anon() function
calls populate_virt() also, and it can be reasonably inferred that it is
expecting that virtual area is not already populated. Even though a
similar check is already in place there, also add the check that was
part of populate_virt() just in case.

Fixes: aab4f62d6c1c ("mempool: support no hugepage mode")
Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com

Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
---
  lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 5 +----
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
index 9f1a425..8c8b9f8 100644
--- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
+++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
@@ -492,9 +492,6 @@ rte_mempool_populate_virt(struct rte_mempool *mp, char 
*addr,
        size_t off, phys_len;
        int ret, cnt = 0;
- /* mempool must not be populated */
-       if (mp->nb_mem_chunks != 0)
-               return -EEXIST;
        /* address and len must be page-aligned */
        if (RTE_PTR_ALIGN_CEIL(addr, pg_sz) != addr)
                return -EINVAL;
@@ -771,7 +768,7 @@ rte_mempool_populate_anon(struct rte_mempool *mp)
        char *addr;
/* mempool is already populated, error */
-       if (!STAILQ_EMPTY(&mp->mem_list)) {
+       if ((!STAILQ_EMPTY(&mp->mem_list)) || mp->nb_mem_chunks != 0) {

I've seen the description above.
I see no point to add the check here since it is basically duplication.
nb_mem_chunks is incremented when chunk is added to mem_list and
decremented when chunk is removed from mem_list.
However, it is not a problem anyway. So, OK to go as is.

                rte_errno = EINVAL;
                return 0;
        }

Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>

Reply via email to