But I'm afraid don't understand how the fact that ULPs will run on
different ports matter? how would the fact that we had two different
pools on different ports make a difference?
If each RDMA port is only used by a single ULP then the ULP driver can provide
a better value for the CQ size than IB_CQE_BATCH. If CQ pools would be created
by ULPs then it would be easy for ULPs to pass their choice of CQ size to the
RDMA core.
But if that is not the case, maybe we may have less completion
aggragation per interrupt.
In case multiple ULPs share an RDMA port then which CQ is chosen for the ULP
will depend on the order in which the ULP drivers are loaded. This may lead to
hard to debug performance issues, e.g. due to different lock contention
behavior. That's another reason why per-ULP CQ pools look more interesting to
me than one CQ pool per HCA.
The ULP is free to pass in an affinity hint to enforce locality to a
specific cpu core. Would that solve this issue?
--
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
