On 12/4/2014 9:41 PM, Shirley Ma wrote:
On 12/04/2014 10:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 12/04/14 17:47, Shirley Ma wrote:
What's the history of this patch?
http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-May/050813.html
I am working on multiple QPs workload. And I created a similar approach
with IB_CQ_VECTOR_LEAST_ATTACHED, which can bring up about 17% small I/O
performance. I think this CQ_VECTOR loading balance should be maintained
in provider not the caller. I didn't see this patch was submitted to
mainline kernel, wonder any reason behind?
My interpretation is that an approach similar to IB_CQ_VECTOR_LEAST_ATTACHED is useful on single-socket systems but suboptimal on multi-socket systems. Hence the code for associating CQ sets with CPU sockets in the SRP initiator. These changes have been queued for kernel 3.19. See also branch drivers-for-3.19 in git repo git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git.
What I did is that I manually controlled IRQ and working thread on the same socket. The CQ is created when mounting the file system in NFS/RDMA, but the workload thread might start from different socket, so per-cpu based implementation might not apply. I will look at SRP implementation.
Hey Shirley,
Bart is correct, in general the LEAST_ATTACHED approach might not be
optimal in the NUMA case. The thread <-> QP/CQ/CPU assignment is
addressed by the multi-channel approach which to my understanding won't
be implemented in NFSoRDMA in the near future (right Chuck?)
However, the LEAST_ATTACH vector hint will revive again in the future
as there is a need to spread applications on different interrupt
vectors (especially for user-space).
CC'ing Matan who is working on this, perhaps he can comment on this as
well.
Sagi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
