I also prefer more the CQ pools per ULP approach (like we did with the MR pools per QP) in the first stage.
Fair enough.
For example, we saw a big improvement in NVMEoF performance when we did CQ moderation (currently local implementation in our labs). If we'll moderate shared CQ (iser + nvmf CQ) we can ruin other ULP performance. ISER/SRP/NVMEoF/NFS has different needs and different architectures, so even adaptive moderation will not supply the best performance in that case.
Here I disagree. Using hard-coded or pre-configured adaptive moderation is something we should move away from. I have a generic adaptive moderation implementation for rdma and nvme in the works, and once that does its job correctly, it should benefit everyone equally. Moreover, IMO it even *supports* the notion of sharing CQs across ULPs because the more consumers we have on a CQ, the better the adaptive moderation works. In fact, if it works well I will vote to turn it on by default and not even allow ULPs to control it but only the user (via sysctl or something) because if you think about it, ULPs can't really choose better then the core. -- 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
