On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:01:36AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Hi Leon, thanks for taking a look. Responses below.
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 2019, at 1:47 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:13:37PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >> Send and Receive completion is handled on a single CPU selected at
> >> the time each Completion Queue is allocated. Typically this is when
> >> an initiator instantiates an RDMA transport, or when a target
> >> accepts an RDMA connection.
> >>
> >> Some ULPs cannot open a connection per CPU to spread completion
> >> workload across available CPUs. For these ULPs, allow the RDMA core
> >> to select a completion vector based on the device's complement of
> >> available comp_vecs.
> >>
> >> When a ULP elects to use RDMA_CORE_ANY_COMPVEC, if multiple CPUs are
> >> available, a different CPU will be selected for each Completion
> >> Queue. For the moment, a simple round-robin mechanism is used.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It make me wonder why do we need comp_vector as an argument to ib_alloc_cq?
> > From what I see, or callers are internally implementing similar logic
> > to proposed here, or they don't care (set 0).
>
> The goal of this patch is to deduplicate that "similar logic".
> Callers that implement this logic already can use
> RDMA_CORE_ANY_COMPVEC and get rid of their own copy.
Can you please send removal patches together with this API proposal?
It will ensure that ULPs authors will notice such changes and we won't
end with special function for one ULP.
>
>
> > Can we enable this comp_vector for everyone and simplify our API?
>
> We could create a new CQ allocation API that does not take a
> comp vector. That might be cleaner than passing in a -1.
+1
>
> But I think some ULPs still want to use the existing API to
> allocate one CQ for each of a device's comp vectors.
It can be "legacy implementation", which is not really needed,
but I don't really know about it.
>
>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> >> include/rdma/ib_verbs.h | 3 +++
> >> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c | 6 ++++--
> >> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c | 5 ++---
> >> 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Jason-
> >>
> >> If this patch is acceptable to all, then I would expect you to take
> >> it through the RDMA tree.
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c
> >> index 7c599878ccf7..a89d549490c4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c
> >> @@ -165,12 +165,27 @@ static void ib_cq_completion_workqueue(struct ib_cq *cq, void *private)
> >> queue_work(cq->comp_wq, &cq->work);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Attempt to spread ULP completion queues over a device's completion
> >> + * vectors so that all available CPU cores can help service the device's
> >> + * interrupt workload. This mechanism may be improved at a later point
> >> + * to dynamically take into account the system's actual workload.
> >> + */
> >> +static int ib_get_comp_vector(struct ib_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + static atomic_t cv;
> >> +
> >> + if (dev->num_comp_vectors > 1)
> >> + return atomic_inc_return(&cv) % dev->num_comp_vectors;
> >
> > It is worth to take into account num_online_cpus(),
>
> I don't believe it is.
>
> Håkon has convinced me that assigning interrupt vectors to
> CPUs is in the domain of user space (ie, driven by policy).
> In addition, one assumes that taking a CPU offline properly
> will also involve re-assigning interrupt vectors that point
> to that core.
>
> In any event, this code can be modified after it is merged
> if it is necessary to accommodate such requirements.
It is a simple change, which is worth to do now as long as
we have interested parties involved here.
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
