From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB08BC433ED for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 21:09:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1465601FD for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 21:09:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229518AbhESVKl (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 17:10:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48108 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229437AbhESVKk (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 17:10:40 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA074C06175F for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 14:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id k4so3089304qkd.0 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 14:09:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=coverfire.com; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JQep4d4+RnvDcQjIAxC0fRbJIlK4zu89KMwgGi6Symw=; b=VZhcFdX+3VKGvcKbyTqLa6Ur/Fiu3fNnKY8GNGC32sLfHjZsQqQLlDg3883wQpXshk YKeS2v+FlMEoSrKZ65WH15a8I1LGqwWu4OKl36ypjE2EHbR/T2RUq2LnUjt9gWPyLnUf VHfh5c1lBXVcKGlnHHa6cpczgh0InF+1NHqU0RdRB3CxTS9SyyK8ZJDfjSO+8lMfTqoH bgS2NmTHdzNuhaVEiDi3r8pTeYwNfQ/NI7h0MJ26boDotPOsXsgHxVqf7cYZmTPAuZBt Iiid7kel2qQW3SPxmhUiAvsF33xjRZzEpnrstjLH1Lu8LjLfWrUbKW3910pbxVGBpirn Q7cw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JQep4d4+RnvDcQjIAxC0fRbJIlK4zu89KMwgGi6Symw=; b=B12UIDAYSnjE2h6DZ5vl8tuz04YZgZWBjjZwbWdD526V9+onv1xIQeyfzQobcv/lsk xKeYxyxlW7tn2dInAA6j2eGyDXwUNMi2yR+S0BaCO50bGNDk5x+4VFc3H9c6+jqTuNyn ig/Mey/v1QC1vYOP64RhZIHCyM4rz+RAEog45aPFUN+MJBxta727JVvY3nQL6WW7xIy+ z+nEKmfj1lKcpdFTT972tUmlLaAUC8TkXFqrvDBXwTzElNyEqIXB6vdpD1h3EYa2Ja+t 1pvrL84d0dnR8nvioMzWZK5/TkxvNVfGR6tMvmdpHH7N0CF6XvG1WXMSF+l4Z35azOtc jY6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531E9JRVTsnHq4cZpie35bCxfR2KHK0+WEwL9733EXxN2dSCzqCE 0/01plhhoKu7EiG6c5tUNuqosA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+n8a1KGFp4LNdP7yhnjvjR77t0/JgkYy9HPj7XMik8jvaMDlVPd64w6Kci+3oegwJqqMEPg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:13ac:: with SMTP id m12mr1516770qki.77.1621458559973; Wed, 19 May 2021 14:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:e56e:28c:e4de:d9eb:cc0b:f46a? ([2607:f2c0:e56e:28c:e4de:d9eb:cc0b:f46a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a19sm516491qtn.97.2021.05.19.14.09.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 May 2021 14:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Umem Questions From: Dan Siemon To: Magnus Karlsson , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= Cc: Xdp Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 17:09:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.1 (3.40.1-1.fc34) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org > > 2) It looks like there is a limit of 2GB on the maximum Umem size? > > I've > > tried with and without huge pages. Is this fundamental? How hard > > would > > it be to increase this? > > This was news to me. Do you know where in the xdp_umem_reg code it > complains about this? I guess it is xsk_umem__create() that fails, > or? > The only limit I see from a basic inspection of the code is that the > number of packet buffers cannot be larger than a u32 (4G). But you > are > not close to that limit. Yes, the failure is in xsk_umem__create(). I don't know where specifically but there are a couple spots in kernel side of that which return ENOMEM which is the return value.