From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/librte_eal: Remove unnecessary
	hugepage zero-filling
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:04:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3179262.cyHqZdDHPg@xps13>
References: <1448219615-63746-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
 <1640963.TLMeDD9tfp@xps13> <20151124144403.79811c0a@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277568E82
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:05:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so47551560wme.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:05:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151124144403.79811c0a@xeon-e3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2015-11-24 14:44, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:13:28 +0100
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> 
> > 2015-11-22 18:28, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:13:35 -0500
> > > Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The kernel fills new allocated (huge) pages with zeros.
> > > > DPDK just has to populate page tables to trigger the allocation.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Nice, especially on slow machines or with large memory.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > 
> > Yes very nice.
> > I think it's too late to integrate this change which can have some
> > unpredictable side effects.
> > Do you agree to wait for 2.3?
> 
> What side effects? Either it is zero or it is not.
> Only some broken architecture would have an issue.

I mean it changes the memory allocator behaviour. It's not something we
want to discover a new bug just before the release.
This kind of important change must be integrated at the beginning of the
release cycle.
I'm asking for opinions because it would be really nice to have.