Eli Cohen wrote:
The idea is to let kernel consumers enjoy the improvements to latency that blue
flame gives. And yes, SDP is motivating us but I am going to push to IPoIB too.
From my recollection of numbers, for user space apps, using inline
accounts for about 1us improvement in the latenc
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:27:15AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Is this correct that today all the kernels QPs use the same UAR, any
> problem with that?
>
Yes, today all kernel consumers use the same UAR. And if you want to
use blue flame then you need to use different UARs.
--
To unsubscribe from
Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Eli Cohen wrote:
>>
> From my recollection of numbers, for user space apps, using inline
> accounts for about 1us improvement in the latency, if this is indeed the
> case, I'm sure if there's great value here for kernel consumers, do you
> have any numbers to support this pat
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:45:42AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > Eli Cohen wrote:
> >>
> > From my recollection of numbers, for user space apps, using inline
> > accounts for about 1us improvement in the latency, if this is indeed the
> > case, I'm sure if there's great value
Eli Cohen wrote:
> It indeed improves SDP's latency - I don't have exact numbers.
the SDP number is very interesting (Amir, do you have it?) but irrelevant for
upstream, any IPoIB numbers?
Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to ma
I am working on it, will notify when have numbers.
On 11/08/2010 10:51 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Eli Cohen wrote:
>> It indeed improves SDP's latency - I don't have exact numbers.
> the SDP number is very interesting (Amir, do you have it?) but irrelevant for
> upstream, any IPoIB numbers?
>
> Or.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:51:30AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Eli Cohen wrote:
> > It indeed improves SDP's latency - I don't have exact numbers.
>
> the SDP number is very interesting (Amir, do you have it?) but irrelevant for
> upstream, any IPoIB numbers?
>
For IPoIB it gives ~1 usec for imp
Eli Cohen wrote:
> For IPoIB it gives ~1 usec for improvement in latency.
yep, this is what I expected, so over your testbed from what value to what
value? also it
would be important to note the change in the cpu utilization (e.g few "vmstat
1" output
lines before/after the change, while runnin
