Re: [PATCH v6] eal: allow worker lcore stacks to be allocated from hugepage memory

From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	"Dmitry Kozlyuk" <dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com>,
	"Don Wallwork" <donw@xsightlabs.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"Chengwen Feng" <fengchengwen@huawei.com>,
	"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
	"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"Honnappa Nagarahalli" <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>, "Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@intel.com>,
	Kathleen.Capella@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] eal: allow worker lcore stacks to be allocated from hugepage memory
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 21:33:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8zZJb_yWEM5dAoWseAewLi_MSFYc2YaWK0gt6WG6FX0=g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13664031.VsHLxoZxqI@thomas>

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:00 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >>> The name of the option should not include "huge".
> > >>> What about "--worker-stack" ?
> > >>> If disabled (equal zero), the workers should use the default stack memory.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Wouldn't that have the potential to create confusion?  The point of this
> > >> change is to allocate worker stacks from hugepages.  Removing huge
> > >> from the option name could give the impression that the command is
> > >> simply to control worker stack size.
> > > It means if we control the worker stack size with a DPDK option,
> > > DPDK memory will be used.
> > > But we cannot force hugepage with this option.
> > > Hugepage is not always available and it can be disabled in DPDK.
> >
> > The command could be rejected if hugepages are not available.
> > That's not in the patch currently, but can be added.
>
> David, Anatoly, Dmitry, what do you think?

We have other non compatible EAL options for which combining them
trigger an init failure.
This is acceptable for me.

-- 
David Marchand