> -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:38 AM > To: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bart Van Assche > <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>; Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>; Dennis > Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL v1 0/4] RDMA loopback device > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 07:17:27PM +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 04:52:06PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 10:48 AM > > > > To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ira Weiny > > > > <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>; Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dennis > > > > Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxx>; > > > > linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL v1 0/4] RDMA loopback device > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 08:10:05AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 09:56 +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > > > > > Suggestion: To enhance 'loopback' performances, can you > > > > > > consider using shared memory or any other IPC instead of going > > > > > > thought the > > > > network stack? > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to avoid having to implement yet another initiator > > > > > block driver. Using IPC implies writing a new block driver and > > > > > also coming up with a new block-over- IPC protocol. Using RDMA > > > > > has the advantage that the existing NVMeOF initator block driver and > protocol can be used. > > > > > > > > > > Bart. > > > > > > > > No, no, i didn't mean to implement new driver, just that the xmit > > > > of the packet would be by use of memcpy instead of going through > > > > TP stack. This would make the data exchange extremely fast when > > > > the traffic is between two entities on the same host. > > > > > > > Can you please review the other patches in this patchset and not just > cover-letter? > > > It does what you are describing without the network stack. > > > > You are right, i should have do it, just was waiting for an answer to > > Leon's question on why not using rxe as a base. > > Yuval, > > You won't get an answer on my question, because it is much more easier > and exciting to write something new instead of fixing already existing piece > of code. Luckily enough, kernel community doesn't allow new code without > proving that old code is not possible to fix. > Please convey this to Bernard too for siw driver.
