On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 07:22 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:21 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Sowmini Varadhan
> > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:51:52 -0400
> >
> > > do I need to resubmit this without the RFC tag? Perhaps I should
> > > have dropped that some tim
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:21 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sowmini Varadhan
> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:51:52 -0400
>
> > do I need to resubmit this without the RFC tag? Perhaps I should
> > have dropped that some time ago.
>
> I want to hear from the powerpc folks whether they can positively
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:51:52 -0400
> do I need to resubmit this without the RFC tag? Perhaps I should
> have dropped that some time ago.
I want to hear from the powerpc folks whether they can positively
adopt the new generic code or not.
_
On (03/31/15 23:12), David Miller wrote:
>
> It's much more amortized with smart buffering strategies, which are
> common on current generation networking cards.
>
> There you only eat one map/unmap per "PAGE_SIZE / rx_pkt_size".
>
> Maybe the infiniband stuff is doing things very suboptimally,
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:08:18 -0400
> I'm starting to wonder if some approximation of dma premapped
> buffers may be needed. Doing a map/unmap on each packet is expensive.
It's much more amortized with smart buffering strategies, which are
common on current generation n
On 03/31/2015 09:01 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 14:06 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
Having bravely said that..
the IB team informs me that they see a 10% degradation using
the spin_lock as opposed to the trylock.
one path going forward is to continue processing thi
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 14:06 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> Having bravely said that..
>
> the IB team informs me that they see a 10% degradation using
> the spin_lock as opposed to the trylock.
>
> one path going forward is to continue processing this patch-set
> as is. I can investigate this
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:06:42 -0400
> Having bravely said that..
>
> the IB team informs me that they see a 10% degradation using
> the spin_lock as opposed to the trylock.
>
> one path going forward is to continue processing this patch-set
> as is. I can investigate
On (03/31/15 10:40), Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
>
> I've not heard back from the IB folks, but I'm going to make
> a judgement call here and go with the spin_lock. *If* they
> report some significant benefit from the trylock, probably
> need to revisit this (and then probably start by re-exmaining
>
Addresses BenH comments with one exception: I've left the
IOMMU_POOL_HASH as is, so that powerpc can tailor it to their
convenience.
I've not heard back from the IB folks, but I'm going to make
a judgement call here and go with the spin_lock. *If* they
report some significant benefit from the try
10 matches
Mail list logo
