On 12/04/2014 10:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 12/04/14 17:47, Shirley Ma wrote: >> What's the history of this patch? >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-May/050813.html >> >> I am working on multiple QPs workload. And I created a similar approach >> with IB_CQ_VECTOR_LEAST_ATTACHED, which can bring up about 17% small I/O >> performance. I think this CQ_VECTOR loading balance should be maintained >> in provider not the caller. I didn't see this patch was submitted to >> mainline kernel, wonder any reason behind? > > My interpretation is that an approach similar to IB_CQ_VECTOR_LEAST_ATTACHED > is useful on single-socket systems but suboptimal on multi-socket systems. > Hence the code for associating CQ sets with CPU sockets in the SRP initiator. > These changes have been queued for kernel 3.19. See also branch > drivers-for-3.19 in git repo git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git.
What I did is that I manually controlled IRQ and working thread on the same socket. The CQ is created when mounting the file system in NFS/RDMA, but the workload thread might start from different socket, so per-cpu based implementation might not apply. I will look at SRP implementation. Thanks, Shirley -- 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
