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 sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:51:52 -0400
do I need to resubmit this without the RFC tag? Perhaps I should
have
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:21 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
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
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, and
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
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 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 sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
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
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
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
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
the
From: Sowmini Varadhan sowmini.varad...@oracle.com
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
