Roland Dreier wrote:
> We can add the multiple interrupt vectors support in two stages:
> 1. The low level driver can create multiple interrupt vectors. Their name
would include a
> serial number from 0 to #CPU's-1. The number of completion vectors can
> be populated through ib_device.num_comp_vectors. Then each ulp can ask for a
specific
> completion vector when creating CQ, which means that passing vector=0 while
creating CQ
> will assign it to completion vector #0.
>
> 2. As the second stage, we can create a "don't care" value which would mean that the driver can
> can attach the CQ to any completion vector. In this case the policy
shouldn't necessary be
> round-robin. We can manage the number of "clients" for each completion
vector and then assign the CQ
> to the least busy one.
this makes sense. However I think we need to come up with some
mechanism where a ULP or application can assign some semantic value to
the CQ event vector it chooses. Maybe a new verb is required.
Add another verb is also a good idea. Do you have anything in mind?
For now all ULPs use vector 0 and we stay with the same behavior as today.
So is it OK to merge the change of the mlx4_core driver now?
Thanks
Tziporet
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
