Hi All, I am facing an issue with 20.05 when legacy mem is being used.
These are the logs added to the remap_segment function during eal_legacy_hugepage_init and found below EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1095 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600089000000 physaddr:216000000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1096 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600089200000 physaddr:216200000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1097 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600089400000 physaddr:216400000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1098 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600089600000 physaddr:216600000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1099 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600089800000 physaddr:216800000 *EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1155 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600090800000 physaddr:216e00000* EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1156 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600090a00000 physaddr:217000000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1158 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600090e00000 physaddr:217600000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1159 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600091000000 physaddr:217800000 *EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1154 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600090600000 physaddr:218c00000* EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1161 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600091400000 physaddr:21a000000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1162 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600091600000 physaddr:21a200000 EAL: remap_segment memseg_len:2097152 ms_idx:1164 msl->base_va:0x600000200000 post-addr:0x600091a00000 physaddr:21ac00000 1. Can the above happen? (index returned increases and then decreases) 2. In legacy mode if the physical address is not contiguous then the virtual address should not be contiguous(Please correct if I am wrong). But in the above we see that even though they are not physically contiguous because of the above, during the memory allocation it is assumed to be physically contiguous and facing other issues. 3. Was there a bug in this part of the code which was fixed. Thanks, Param.
