On 10/20/2014 3:56 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 10/19/14 19:36, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 10/7/2014 4:07 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
* comp_vector, a number in the range 0..n-1 specifying the
- MSI-X completion vector. Some HCA's allocate multiple (n)
- MSI-X vectors per HCA port. If the IRQ affinity masks of
- these interrupts have been configured such that each MSI-X
- interrupt is handled by a different CPU then the comp_vector
- parameter can be used to spread the SRP completion workload
- over multiple CPU's.
+ MSI-X completion vector of the first RDMA channel. Some
+ HCA's allocate multiple (n) MSI-X vectors per HCA port. If
+ the IRQ affinity masks of these interrupts have been
+ configured such that each MSI-X interrupt is handled by a
+ different CPU then the comp_vector parameter can be used to
+ spread the SRP completion workload over multiple CPU's.
This is fairly not trivial for the user...
Aren't we requesting a bit too much awareness here?
Can't we just "make it work"? The user hands out ch_count - why can't
you do some least-used logic here?
Maybe we can even go with per-cpu QPs and discard comp_vector argument?
this would probably bring the best performance, wouldn't it?
(fallback to least-used logic in case HW support less vectors)
Hello Sagi,
The only reason the comp_vector parameter is still supported is because
of backwards compatibility. What I expect is that users will set the
ch_count parameter but not the comp_vector parameter.
Agreed...
Using one QP per CPU thread does not necessarily result in the best
performance. In the tests I ran performance was about 4% better when
using one QP for each pair of CPU threads (with hyperthreading enabled).
I usually don't like using defaults based on empirical experiments on
specific workloads. IMO, going either full blown MQ (per-cpu), or
go SQ for default.
But that is just my opinion...
you call it.
+static unsigned ch_count;
+module_param(ch_count, uint, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(ch_count,
+ "Number of RDMA channels to use for communication with an
SRP target. Using more than one channel improves performance if the
HCA supports multiple completion vectors. The default value is the
minimum of four times the number of online CPU sockets and the number
of completion vectors supported by the HCA.");
Why? how did you get to this magic equation?
On the systems I have access to measurements have shown that this choice
for the ch_count parameter results in a significant performance
improvement without consuming too many system resources. The performance
difference when using more than four channels was small. This means that
the exact value of this parameter is not that important. What matters to
me is that users can benefit from improved performance even if the
ch_count kernel module parameter has been left to its default value.
I do like the idea of giving users high performance out-of-the-box. But
as I wrote below, I less like the idea of basing your choice on
experiments.
Sagi.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
