[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/9] mempool: remove callback to get capabilities
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Thu Mar 15 13:00:08 CET 2018
On 15-Mar-18 11:49 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 12:48 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 14-Mar-18 5:24 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2018 07:53 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>>> On 14-Mar-18 4:12 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 03/14/2018 05:40 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-Mar-18 3:39 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> The callback was introduced to let generic code to know octeontx
>>>>>>> mempool driver requirements to use single physically contiguous
>>>>>>> memory chunk to store all objects and align object address to
>>>>>>> total object size. Now these requirements are met using a new
>>>>>>> callbacks to calculate required memory chunk size and to populate
>>>>>>> objects using provided memory chunk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These capability flags are not used anywhere else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Restricting capabilities to flags is not generic and likely to
>>>>>>> be insufficient to describe mempool driver features. If required
>>>>>>> in the future, API which returns structured information may be
>>>>>>> added.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a general comment - it is not enough to describe minimum
>>>>>> memchunk requirements. With memory hotplug patchset that's
>>>>>> hopefully getting merged in 18.05, memzones will no longer be
>>>>>> guaranteed to be IOVA-contiguous. So, if a driver requires its
>>>>>> mempool to not only be populated from a single memzone, but a
>>>>>> single *physically contiguous* memzone, going by only callbacks
>>>>>> will not do, because whether or not something should be a single
>>>>>> memzone says nothing about whether this memzone has to also be
>>>>>> IOVA-contiguous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So i believe this needs to stay in one form or another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (also it would be nice to have a flag that a user could pass to
>>>>>> mempool_create that would force memzone reservation be
>>>>>> IOVA-contiguous, but that's a topic for another conversation.
>>>>>> prime user for this would be KNI.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that min_chunk_size should be treated as IOVA-contiguous.
>>>>
>>>> Why? It's perfectly reasonable to e.g. implement a software mempool
>>>> driver that would perform some optimizations due to all objects
>>>> being in the same VA-contiguous memzone, yet not be dependent on
>>>> underlying physical memory layout. These are two separate concerns IMO.
>>>
>>> It looks like there is some misunderstanding here or I simply don't
>>> understand your point.
>>> Above I mean that driver should be able to advertise its requirements
>>> on IOVA-contiguous regions.
>>> If driver do not care about physical memory layout, no problem.
>>
>> Please correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding was that you
>> wanted to use min_chunk as a way to express minimum requirements for
>> IOVA-contiguous memory. If i understood you correctly, i don't think
>> that's the way to go because there could be valid use cases where a
>> mempool driver would like to advertise min_chunk_size to be equal to
>> its total size (i.e. allocate everything in a single memzone), yet not
>> require that memzone to be IOVA-contiguous. I think these are two
>> different concerns, and one does not, and should not imply the other.
>
> Aha, you're saying that virtual-contiguous and IOVA-contiguous
> requirements are different things that it could be usecases where
> virtual contiguous is important but IOVA-contiguos is not required. It
> is perfectly fine.
> As I understand IOVA-contiguous (physical) typically means
> virtual-contiguous as well. Requirements to have everything virtually
> contiguous and some blocks physically contiguous are unlikely. So, it
> may be reduced to either virtual or physical contiguous. If mempool does
> not care about physical contiguous at all, MEMPOOL_F_NO_PHYS_CONTIG flag
> should be used and min_chunk_size should mean virtual contiguous
> requirements. If mempool requires physical contiguous objects, there is
> *no* MEMPOOL_F_NO_PHYS_CONTIG flag and min_chunk_size means physical
> contiguous requirements.
>
Fair point. I think we're in agreement now :) This will need to be
documented then.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
More information about the dev
mailing list