On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:37 AM Olga Kornievskaia
<olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 6:42 AM Dan Aloni <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 08:12:53AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Dan Aloni <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:19:43PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
>> > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > >
>> > > > An rpc client uses a transport switch and one ore more transports
>> > > > associated with that switch. Since transports are shared among
>> > > > rpc clients, create a symlink into the xprt_switch directory
>> > > > instead of duplicating entries under each rpc client.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > >
>> > > >..
>> > > > @@ -188,6 +204,11 @@ void rpc_sysfs_client_destroy(struct rpc_clnt *clnt)
>> > > > struct rpc_sysfs_client *rpc_client = clnt->cl_sysfs;
>> > > >
>> > > > if (rpc_client) {
>> > > > + char name[23];
>> > > > +
>> > > > + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "switch-%d",
>> > > > + rpc_client->xprt_switch->xps_id);
>> > > > + sysfs_remove_link(&rpc_client->kobject, name);
>> > >
>> > > Hi Olga,
>> > >
>> > > If a client can use a single switch, shouldn't the name of the symlink
>> > > be just "switch"? This is to be consistent with other symlinks in
>> > > `sysfs` such as the ones in block layer, for example in my
>> > > `/sys/block/sda`:
>> > >
>> > > bdi -> ../../../../../../../../../../../virtual/bdi/8:0
>> > > device -> ../../../5:0:0:0
>> >
>> > I think the client is written so that in the future it might have more
>> > than one switch?
>>
>> I wonder what would be the use for that, as a switch is already collection of
>> xprts. Which would determine the switch to use per a new task IO?
>
>
> I thought the switch is a collection of xprts of the same type. And if you wanted to have an RDMA connection and a TCP connection to the same server, then it would be stored under different switches? For instance we round-robin thru the transports but I don't see why we would be doing so between a TCP and an RDMA transport. But I see how a client can totally switch from an TCP based transport to an RDMA one (or a set of transports and round-robin among that set). But perhaps I'm wrong in how I'm thinking about xprt_switch and multipathing.
<looks like my reply bounced so trying to resend>
