From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] xprtrdma Send completion batching
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:39:46 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170906193946.GC18461@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5B2F42B8-2CBD-43F4-BBAD-71EDD4F871FB@oracle.com>
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:33:50PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> B. Force RPC completion to wait for Send completion, which
> would allow the post-v4.6 scatter-gather code to work
> safely. This would need some guarantee that Sends will
> always complete in a short period.
Why is waiting for the send completion so fundamentally different from
waiting for the remote RPC reply?
I would say that 99% of time the send completion and RPC reply
completion will occure approximately concurrently.
eg It is quite likely the RPC reply SEND carries an embeded ack
for the requesting SEND..
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-06 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-05 17:00 [PATCH RFC 0/5] xprtrdma Send completion batching Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 17:00 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] xprtrdma: Clean up SGE accounting in rpcrdma_prepare_msg_sges() Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 17:00 ` [PATCH RFC 2/5] xprtrdma: Change return value of rpcrdma_prepare_send_sges() Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 17:00 ` [PATCH RFC 3/5] xprtrdma: Add data structure to manage RDMA Send arguments Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 17:00 ` [PATCH RFC 4/5] xprtrdma: Manage RDMA Send arguments via lock-free circular queue Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 21:50 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 17:00 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] xprtrdma: Remove atomic send completion counting Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 20:06 ` [PATCH RFC 0/5] xprtrdma Send completion batching Jason Gunthorpe
2017-09-05 21:22 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-05 22:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-09-06 14:17 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-06 1:28 ` Tom Talpey
2017-09-06 11:54 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-09-06 14:15 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-06 14:29 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-09-06 15:11 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-06 15:23 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-09-06 18:33 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-06 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2017-09-06 20:02 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-06 20:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-09-06 21:00 ` Chuck Lever
2017-09-06 21:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-09-07 13:17 ` Tom Talpey
2017-09-07 15:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-09-07 16:15 ` Tom Talpey
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=20170906193946.GC18461@obsidianresearch.com \
--to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).