Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this adds 256k to VMH. In fact we are going to try and move some of VMH allocations to vregions, for which we might also end up shrinking VMH. If this is for optimisation to avoid using larger blocks, can we keep the total size the same and rebalance buffers? Also I don't understand how saving some of 64k buffers of which there are currently 3, requires adding 8 32k buffers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't want to rebalance globally here (requires testing all scenarios), we can shrink later if some allocations are moved. And even better, get rid of these blocks in the future. In the current configuration there are not enough 64k blocks which are used inefficiently, and in fact this is already a limited increase from PR 10499 which was too big. I could limit it more to 4x 32 probably.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@abonislawski It seems like we need this for ptl-00/wcl-00 branches whilst we get vregion ready for next main ? Could we do some conditional logic in the kconfig that picks this bigger value if vregion = n ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
vregion count is 3 for all platforms, so it won't make any difference. The vregion allocator is already enabled but not used. I think the logical way is to just shrink VMH when something is actually moved to vregions. Right now I can't see a reason to limit the main branch pass rate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@abonislawski we want to start using vregions ASAP #10702
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@abonislawski ok, I'll merge this now and we can use the overlays to transition. i.e. we can shrink VMH usage as we pack pipelines/modules into vregions.