On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:06:16PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Question though, a ULP may want to keep a couple of WRs around instead
of having each allocated in the stack and handled one by one. We need
to provide it with a hint of what is the size it needs.
Note that with the drastic shrink
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:44:26PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
I do agree that the size on the stack is less of an issue now. What
still can matter is handling each wr one by one vs. doing a collective
post.
But if structured correctly you can still do that with on-stack WRs.
I can
On 8/4/2015 8:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:44:26PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
I do agree that the size on the stack is less of an issue now. What
still can matter is handling each wr one by one vs. doing a collective
post.
But if structured correctly you can
On 8/4/2015 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This patch split up struct ib_send_wr so that all non-trivial verbs
use their own structure which embedds struct ib_send_wr. This dramaticly
shrinks the size of a WR for most common operations.
Hey Christoph,
I think this looks good in general.
On 8/4/2015 8:23 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:06:16PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Question though, a ULP may want to keep a couple of WRs around instead
of having each allocated in the stack and handled one by one. We need
to provide it with a hint of what is the size
