On 2/28/2018 8:55 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:50 +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
On 2/28/2018 2:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 02/27/18 14:15, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
-static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
*poll_wc)
+static int __ib_process_cq(s
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:50 +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 2/28/2018 2:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 02/27/18 14:15, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > -static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
> > > *poll_wc)
> > > +static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int b
On 2/28/2018 2:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 02/27/18 14:15, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
-static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
*poll_wc)
+static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
*poll_wc,
+ int batch)
{
-
On 02/27/18 14:15, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
-static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
*poll_wc)
+static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
*poll_wc,
+ int batch)
{
- int i, n, completed = 0;
- struct ib_w
On 2/28/2018 12:09 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:39:09PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
The only reason why I added this array on-stack was to allow consumers
that did not use ib_alloc_cq api to call it, but that seems like a
wrong decision when thinking it over again (a
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:39:09PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
> >>The only reason why I added this array on-stack was to allow consumers
> >>that did not use ib_alloc_cq api to call it, but that seems like a
> >>wrong decision when thinking it over again (as probably these users
> >>did not set
The only reason why I added this array on-stack was to allow consumers
that did not use ib_alloc_cq api to call it, but that seems like a
wrong decision when thinking it over again (as probably these users
did not set the wr_cqe correctly).
How about we make ib_process_cq_direct use the cq wc a
> On Feb 21, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
>>> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
/* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
-#define IB_POLL_BATCH 16
+#define IB_POLL_BATCH 8
>>>
>>> The
On 2/21/2018 3:44 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
/* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
-#define IB_POLL_BATCH 16
+#define IB_POLL_BATCH 8
The purpose of batch polling is to minimize contention on
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
/* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
-#define IB_POLL_BATCH 16
+#define IB_POLL_BATCH 8
The purpose of batch polling is to minimize contention on the cq spinlock.
Reducing the IB_P
On 2/20/2018 11:47 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Feb 20, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
/* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
-#define IB_POLL_BATCH 16
+#define IB_POLL_BATCH
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Hi Arnd Bergmann,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
>> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Arnd Bergmann
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:59 PM
>> To: Doug Ledford ; Jason Gunth
> On Feb 20, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> /* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
>> -#define IB_POLL_BATCH 16
>> +#define IB_POLL_BATCH 8
>
> The purpose
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> /* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
> -#define IB_POLL_BATCH16
> +#define IB_POLL_BATCH8
The purpose of batch polling is to minimize contention on the cq spinlock.
Red
Hi Arnd Bergmann,
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:59 PM
> To: Doug Ledford ; Jason Gunthorpe
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann ; Leon Romanovsky
> ; Sagi Grimberg ;
15 matches
Mail list logo