On Tue, Aug 11 2009, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11 2009, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Anyway, YMMV, I would appreciate some test results (and as usual, that > >> > even includes just saying that it boots and functions for you). If > >> > people feel adventurous, patches for other controllers will be happily > >> > queued up for testing. I may even be convinced to implement support > >> > for your controller of choice, if you have some fast storage hooked up > >> > and would like to experiment. Generally, adding support to a driver is > >> > not very hard and the two conversions included were also meant to serve > >> > as an inspiration. > >> > >> Sounds very interesting. Have you already considered patching the SRP > >> initiator ? During the SRP performance tests I ran CPU usage on the > >> initiator was more than 95% and on the target less than 10%. > > > > No I haven't, if you point me at which srp files, I can take a look. > > The relevant source files are: > include/scsi/srp.h > include/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.h > drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.h > drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c > drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c > drivers/scsi/libsrp.c > drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp_internal.h I can find | grep too :-) Did you profile this? Where did it burn all the CPU time on the initiator side? -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
