Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-13 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 01/11/15 10:40, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > I would say there is no need for specific coordination from iSCSI PoV. > This is exactly what flow steering is designed for. As I see it, in > order to get the TX/RX to match rings, the user can attach 5-tuple rules > (using standard ethtool) to steer packe

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-13 Thread Sagi Grimberg
On 1/12/2015 10:05 PM, Mike Christie wrote: On 01/11/2015 03:23 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: On 1/9/2015 8:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't something to be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol requirement. That is,

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-13 Thread Sagi Grimberg
On 1/12/2015 2:56 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: On 01/11/15 10:40, Sagi Grimberg wrote: I would say there is no need for specific coordination from iSCSI PoV. This is exactly what flow steering is designed for. As I see it, in order to get the TX/RX to match rings, the user can attach 5-tuple rules

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-12 Thread Mike Christie
On 01/11/2015 03:40 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > On 1/9/2015 10:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote: >> On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-12 Thread Mike Christie
On 01/11/2015 03:23 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > On 1/9/2015 8:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > >>> >>> Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't something to >>> be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol >>> requirement. >>> >>> That is, the expected + max

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-11 Thread Sagi Grimberg
On 1/9/2015 10:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote: On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, N

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-11 Thread Sagi Grimberg
On 1/9/2015 8:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't something to be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol requirement. That is, the expected + maximum sequence numbers are returned as part of every response PDU, which

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-09 Thread Mike Christie
On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: >> >> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-09 Thread James Bottomley
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:28 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: [...] > > I think you are assuming we are leaving the iscsi code as it is today. > > > > For the non-MCS mq session per CPU design, we would be allocating and > > binding the session and its resources to specific CPUs. They would only > > b

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-09 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger > wrote: > >> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottom

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-09 Thread Michael Christie
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800, Nicholas

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-08 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 21:03 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800,

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-08 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 07-01-15 09:22:13, Lee Duncan wrote: > On 01/07/2015 08:25 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Now that scsi-mq is fully included, we need an iSCSI initiator that > > would use it to achieve scalable performance. The need is even greater > > for iSCSI offload devices and trans

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion

2015-01-08 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 08:50 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On 01/07/15 22:39, Mike Christie wr