Quoting r. Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] repost: IPoIB queue size tune patch > > > Hello Roland, > > Thanks. > > Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/03/2006 10:50:37 PM: > > > Sorry I hadn't gotten a chance to read this over until now... > > > > > - IPOIB_RX_RING_SIZE = 128, > > > - IPOIB_TX_RING_SIZE = 64, > > > + IPOIB_SENDQ_SIZE = 64, > > > + IPOIB_RECVQ_SIZE = 128, > > > > Can you explain again why it's a good idea to rename these? Is the > > name "sendq_size" really clearer than "tx_ring_size," especially in > > the context of a network driver? > > tx_ring and rx_ring are not good names for IPoIB. tx_ring in IPoIB is a place > to save pointers and rx_ring a place to allocate skb buffs.
Actually names make sense to me - they are cyclic buffers, hence ring. > I am working on > a patch to remove tx_ring and replace rx_ring with a list, which would > reduce some tx_ring overhead. What overhead? Please don't, lists are bad for cache, require locks ... Circular buffers are much better, I don't have the time now but I think we can even make event handler completely lockless with them. > > > > > + int sendq_size; > > > + int recvq_size; > > > > Why does every device need a private copy of the ring sizes? It seems > > better to just use ipoib_sendq_size and ipoib_recvq_size directly -- > > round them up in the module init function, and I guess mark them > > __read_mostly. > > > > Michael suggested to save them in the priv before. I did some test and didn't > see the difference. I wil move them out of priv. The point was to make the parameter writeable in sysfs. If you don't do this there's no point. -- Michael S. Tsirkin Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
