From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
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: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:08:29 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170907150829.GA20644@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2cb453d-a59f-de64-7a42-09e075562895@talpey.com>
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:17:16AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote:
> >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.
>
> Absolutely not. The RPC reply requires upper layer processing at
> the server, which involves work requests, context switches, file
I should have said '99% of the time the SEND will occure approximately
concurrently or sooner'
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-07 15:08 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
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 [this message]
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=20170907150829.GA20644@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 \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
/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).