Bart Van Assche, on 08/03/2010 06:02 PM wrote:
SRP I/O with small block sizes causes a high CPU load. Processing IB
completions on the context of a kernel thread instead of in interrupt context
allows to process up to 25% more I/O operations per second. This patch does
add a kernel parameter 'thread' that allows to specify whether to process IB
completions in interrupt context or in kernel thread context. Also, the IB
receive notification processing loop is rewritten as proposed earlier by Ralph
Campbell (see also https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/89426/). As the
measurement results below show, rewriting the IB receive notification
processing loop did not have a measurable impact on performance. Processing
IB receive notifications in thread context however does have a measurable
impact: workloads with I/O depth one are processed at most 10% slower and
workloads with larger I/O depths are processed up to 25% faster.

I believe this is a wrong approach for this problem. You are workarounding it, not solving, and introducing a bad side effect of additional context switch per command, so increasing its processing latency. It doesn't matter that it can be switched off. Linux already has too many magic knobs where average user for long ago get lost.

If you want to spread requests post processing among several CPUs, you should consider real approaches for that:

1. Consider if it's possible to program hardware to spread IRQs for incoming packets among several CPU. At least some networking hardware allows that, so, I guess, IB also could.

2. Modify SCSI/block layer, so they perform the post processing not on the SIRQ level, but in the context of the processes which originated the corresponding request. This is, basically, what networking code is doing.

Thus, I'd say NACK to this patch. I don't like hackish workarounds instead of real solutions.

Sorry,
Vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to