Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] svcrdma: Fewer calls to wake_up() in Send completion handler

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/26/2021 1:53 PM, Chuck Lever III wrote:


On Jul 26, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 7/26/2021 10:46 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
  /**
   * svc_rdma_wc_send - Invoked by RDMA provider for each polled Send WC
   * @cq: Completion Queue context
@@ -275,11 +289,9 @@ static void svc_rdma_wc_send(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
    	trace_svcrdma_wc_send(wc, &ctxt->sc_cid);
  +	svc_rdma_wake_send_waiters(rdma, 1);
  	complete(&ctxt->sc_done);
  -	atomic_inc(&rdma->sc_sq_avail);
-	wake_up(&rdma->sc_send_wait);

This appears to change the order of wake_up() vs complete().
Is that intentional?

IIRC I reversed the order here to be consistent with the other
Send completion handlers.


Is there any possibility of a false
scheduler activation, later leading to a second wakeup or poll?

The two "wake-ups" here are not related to each other, and RPC
Replies are transmitted already so this shouldn't have a direct
impact on server latency. But I might not understand your
question.

IIUC, you're saying that the thread which is awaiting the
completion of ctxt->sc_done is not also waiting to send
anything, therefore no thread is going to experience a
fire drill. Ok.

Feel free to add my
  Reviewed-By: Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
to the series.

Tom.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux