On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:51:34AM +0200, Gioh Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:46 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:12:09AM +0200, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:36 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > > > > From: Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > RNBD can make double-queues for irq-mode and poll-mode.
> > > > > For example, on 4-CPU system 8 request-queues are created,
> > > > > 4 for irq-mode and 4 for poll-mode.
> > > > > If the IO has HIPRI flag, the block-layer will call .poll function
> > > > > of RNBD. Then IO is sent to the poll-mode queue.
> > > > > Add optional nr_poll_queues argument for map_devices interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > To support polling of RNBD, RTRS client creates connections
> > > > > for both of irq-mode and direct-poll-mode.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, on 4-CPU system it could've create 5 connections:
> > > > > con[0] => user message (softirq cq)
> > > > > con[1:4] => softirq cq
> > > > >
> > > > > After this patch, it can create 9 connections:
> > > > > con[0] => user message (softirq cq)
> > > > > con[1:4] => softirq cq
> > > > > con[5:8] => DIRECT-POLL cq
> >
> > <...>
>
> I am sorry that I don't understand exactly.
> Do I need to change them to "con<5..8>"?
No, I just removed not relevant text and replaced it with <...> in
automatic way :).
>
>
> >
> > > > > +int rtrs_clt_rdma_cq_direct(struct rtrs_clt *clt, unsigned int index)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int cnt;
> > > > > + struct rtrs_con *con;
> > > > > + struct rtrs_clt_sess *sess;
> > > > > + struct path_it it;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > + for (path_it_init(&it, clt);
> > > > > + (sess = it.next_path(&it)) && it.i < it.clt->paths_num; it.i++) {
> > > > > + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sess->state) != RTRS_CLT_CONNECTED))
> > > >
> > > > We talked about useless likely/unlikely in your workloads.
> > >
> > > Right, I've made a patch to remove all likely/unlikely
> > > and will send with the next patch set.
> >
> > This specific line is "brand new". We don't add code that will be
> > removed in next patch.
>
> Ah, ok. So you mean,
> 1. remove unlikely from that line
> 2. send a patch to remove all likely/unlikely for next round
>
> Am I right?
Right
