On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:17:49AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:21:50AM +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 05:16:16PM +0200, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I didn't got any further comments on this one. > > > Any idea why SG in CM is un-welcome? > > By mistake I sent a private mail only. > > Cc: Roland Dreier <[email protected]> > > Cc: Sean Hefty <[email protected]> > > Cc: Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> > > > > Your advice would be very appreciated. > > I haven't looked in detail at the patch, but in principle, using S/G > when ever possible should be the default, even if this creates a > performance regression. > > It is well known that high order allocations are problematic in Linux > and should be avoided, and I also have seen systems blow up because of > high order IPoIB allocations. > > That said, there may be cases where S/G is not possible, you should > try and get Mellanox to comment if all their offloads work on all > their cards when S/G is used. Work may be required to resolve any of > these constraints. I'd like to belive there is some reason why we've > been doing high order allocations for so many years. > > FWIW, I would probably choose to default S/G over any other offload > acceleration.
I concur with Jason's assessment. As Yann asked before: What hardware have you tested this on? Do you have any performance measurements? Or do you have a reproducer for some of the allocation issues which have been seen? I can't comment on how this may affect Mellanox Hardware but it seems like it will work fine with Qib hardware. Ira > > Jason > -- > 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 -- 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
