> -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:03 PM > To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Gagandeep Singh > <g.si...@nxp.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Burakov, Anatoly > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; > Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Nipun Gupta > <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; > Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>; Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change max hugepage sizes to 4 > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:28 PM Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > wrote: > > > > HI Thomas, > > > > > > > DPDK currently is supporting maximum 3 hugepage, sizes whereas > > > > > system can support more than this e.g. > > > > > 64K, 2M, 32M and 1G. > > > > > > > > You can mention ARM platform here, and that this issue starts with > > > > kernel 5.2 (and I would try to mention this in the title as well). > > > > This is better than an annotation that will be lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having these four hugepage sizes available to use by DPDK, which > > > > > is valid in case of '--in-memory' EAL option or using 4 separate > > > > > mount points for each hugepage size; > > > > > hugepage_info_init() API reports an error. > > > > > > > > Can you describe what is the impact from a user point of view > > > > rather than mentioning this internal function? > > > > > > Yes please, we need to understand how much it is critical. > > > Should we Cc sta...@dpdk.org for backport? > > > Should it be merged at the last minute in 19.08? > > > > > > > VPP usages in-memory option. So, VPP on ARM with kernel 5.2 wont' work > without this patch. > > > > I have been looking at the changes in the linux kernel. > Can you pinpoint at the commit that changed this in 5.2? > > I can see a change in the code, but in 5.0, or maybe something changed in the > configuration. > > The patch you propose is not that risky (x86 supports two pagesizes, and max > hugepage is already at 3, so we know the code works fine with less than the > max). > Yet, I want to understand why this is urgent now. > > CCing other architecture maintainers.
Tested this change with an arm64 machine + 4.18 kernel. Looks OK. Tested-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > -- > David Marchand
