On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Tal Gilboa <talgi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/6/2018 11:34 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >> >> Hi Tal, >> >>>> I think Tal has idea/s on how the existing library can be changed to >>>> support more modes/models >>>> >>> What I was thinking is allowing DIM algorithm to disregard data which is >>> 0. Currently if bytes == 0 we return "SAME" immediately. We can change it to >>> simply move to the packets check (which may be renamed to "completions"). >>> This way you could use DIM while only optimizing to (P1) high packet rate >>> and (P2) low interrupt rate. >> >> >> That was exactly where I started from. But unfortunately it did not work >> well :( >> >> From my experiments, the moderation was all over the place failing to >> converge. At least the workloads that I've tested with, it was more >> successful to have a stricter step policy and pulling towards latency >> if we are consistently catching single completion per event. >> >> I'm not an expert here at all, but at this point, based on my attempts >> so far, I'm not convinced the current net_dim scheme could work. > > I do believe we can make it work. I see your addition of the cpe part to > stats compare. Might not be a bad idea for networking devices. Overall, it > seems to me like this would be a private case of the general DIM > optimization, since it doesn't need to account for aggregation, for > instance, which breaks the "more packets == more data" ratio. Did U2 came to agreement/lead on how to re-use the upstream library for the matter Sagi is pushing for? -- 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
