On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 17:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 08/20/13 17:34, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > Question, > > If srp now will allow larger queues while using a single global FMR pool > > of size 1024, isn't it more likely now that in stress environment srp > > will run out of FMRs to handle IO commands? > > I mean that let's say that you have x scsi hosts with can_queue size of > > 512 (+-) and all of them are running IO stress, is it possible that all > > FMRs will be inuse and no FMR is available to register the next IO SG-list? > > Did you try out such a scenario? > > > > I guess that in such a case IB core will return EAGAIN and SRP will > > return SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY. > > I think it is a good Idea to move FMR pools to be per connection rather > > than a global pool, what do you think? > > That makes sense to me. And as long as the above has not yet been > implemented I'm fine with dropping patch 8/8 from this patch set.
Don't drop it; most configs won't have all that many connections and shouldn't have an issue; even those that do will only see a potential slowdown when running with everything at once. We can address the FMR/BMME issues on top of this patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
