From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eelco Chaudron Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: adds mlockall() to fix pages Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:59:38 +0200 Message-ID: References: <22990026376b08418cb0eb6f028840c03e89f47f.1505221429.git.echaudro@redhat.com> <4147502.SWF1kaKTU5@xps> <2ff0680b-b73f-fd1f-9f41-caa38a13bcde@redhat.com> <20170919072818.zbhjsfhpbqf4fqxz@neon> <20170925075319.agzytjfgai7usngs@platinum> Reply-To: echaudro@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, jingjing.wu@intel.com To: Olivier MATZ Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D931AF03 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:59:18 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170925075319.agzytjfgai7usngs@platinum> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 25/09/17 09:53, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> [SNIP] >> I did not at add a log, as the rte log subsystem is not yet initialized. >> However we could add a printf("WARNING: mlockall() failed with error %s") >> like message. What do you think? > Since it's not critical, maybe NOTICE is better than WARNING. > > One more question: what would be the drawback of calling > mlockall() after eal_init()? (rte_log would be initialized) > Calling mlockall() after eal_init() does seem to have the same effect. I'll send out a v2 patch later today with a rte_log(NOTICE).