All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] restore polling to nvme-rdma
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:09:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181212080945.GA29679@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <937fc9db-1248-fcad-1b59-627c4b44ef16@grimberg.me>

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:16:31PM -0800, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>>> Add an additional queue mapping for polling queues that will
>>> host polling for latency critical I/O.
>>>
>>> One caveat is that we don't want these queues to be pure polling
>>> as we don't want to bother with polling for the initial nvmf connect
>>> I/O. Hence, introduce ib_change_cq_ctx that will modify the cq polling
>>> context from SOFTIRQ to DIRECT.
>>
>> So do we really care?  Yes, polling for the initial connect is not
>> exactly efficient, but then again it doesn't happen all that often.
>>
>> Except for efficiency is there any problem with just starting out
>> in polling mode?
>
> I found it cumbersome so I didn't really consider it...
> Isn't it a bit awkward? we will need to implement polled connect
> locally in nvme-rdma (because fabrics doesn't know anything about
> queues, hctx or polling).

Well, it should just be a little blk_poll loop, right?

> I'm open to looking at it if you think that this is better. Note that if
> we had the CQ in our hands, we would do exactly what we did here
> effectively: use interrupt for the connect and then simply not
> re-arm it again and poll... Should we poll the connect just because
> we are behind the CQ API?

I'm just worried that the switch between the different context looks
like a way to easy way to shoot yourself in the foot, so if we can
avoid exposing that it would make for a harder to abuse API.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/4] restore polling to nvme-rdma
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:09:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181212080945.GA29679@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <937fc9db-1248-fcad-1b59-627c4b44ef16@grimberg.me>

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018@11:16:31PM -0800, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>>> Add an additional queue mapping for polling queues that will
>>> host polling for latency critical I/O.
>>>
>>> One caveat is that we don't want these queues to be pure polling
>>> as we don't want to bother with polling for the initial nvmf connect
>>> I/O. Hence, introduce ib_change_cq_ctx that will modify the cq polling
>>> context from SOFTIRQ to DIRECT.
>>
>> So do we really care?  Yes, polling for the initial connect is not
>> exactly efficient, but then again it doesn't happen all that often.
>>
>> Except for efficiency is there any problem with just starting out
>> in polling mode?
>
> I found it cumbersome so I didn't really consider it...
> Isn't it a bit awkward? we will need to implement polled connect
> locally in nvme-rdma (because fabrics doesn't know anything about
> queues, hctx or polling).

Well, it should just be a little blk_poll loop, right?

> I'm open to looking at it if you think that this is better. Note that if
> we had the CQ in our hands, we would do exactly what we did here
> effectively: use interrupt for the connect and then simply not
> re-arm it again and poll... Should we poll the connect just because
> we are behind the CQ API?

I'm just worried that the switch between the different context looks
like a way to easy way to shoot yourself in the foot, so if we can
avoid exposing that it would make for a harder to abuse API.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-12  8:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-11 23:36 [PATCH RFC 0/4] restore polling to nvme-rdma Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] nvme-fabrics: allow user to pass in nr_poll_queues Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] rdma: introduce ib_change_cq_ctx Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] nvme-rdma: implement polling queue map Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] nvme-multipath: disable polling for underlying namespace request queue Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:11     ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:19     ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:19       ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:21       ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:21         ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:29         ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:29           ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:37           ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:37             ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-11 23:36 ` [PATCH RFC nvme-cli 5/4] fabrics: pass in number of polling queues Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-11 23:36   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  0:27   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  0:27     ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:07 ` [PATCH RFC 0/4] restore polling to nvme-rdma Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:07   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  7:16   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  7:16     ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  8:09     ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2018-12-12  8:09       ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12  8:53       ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12  8:53         ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12 14:05         ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12 14:05           ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-12 18:23           ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12 18:23             ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12 16:37 ` Steve Wise
2018-12-12 16:37   ` Steve Wise
2018-12-12 18:05   ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12 18:05     ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-12-12 18:10     ` Steve Wise
2018-12-12 18:10       ` Steve Wise

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181212080945.GA29679@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.