From: jthumshirn@suse.de (Johannes Thumshirn)
Subject: [PATCH rfc 3/6] nvme-pci: Use irq-poll for completion processing
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:47:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161010074751.evzcnvmj4eqol74o@linux-x5ow.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ec3fc69-7f1f-250c-2f9e-f1639694b9dc@grimberg.me>
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016@07:57:11PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
> > > @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@
> > > #define NVME_AQ_DEPTH 256
> > > #define SQ_SIZE(depth) (depth * sizeof(struct nvme_command))
> > > #define CQ_SIZE(depth) (depth * sizeof(struct nvme_completion))
> > > +#define NVME_POLL_BUDGET_IRQ 256
> >
> > Is there a reason for the 256 or is it just a nicely suited value?
>
> Umm, No good reason behind it, I used this value before for irq-poll
> and it seemed to fit best. We can try other budgets or have it
> configurable. The point is to not abuse the soft-irq context for too
> long and maintain fairness between completion queues so we just need
> a reasonable value.
Ah OK. I'm not sure whether we should impose a limit (be it a wild guess or a
measurement) or make it adjustable via sysfs. IIRC there is a sysctl to tune
the NAPI budget in the networking stack, which then again raises the question
of doing it global or on a per controller basis.
>
>
> > Especially
> > as you've been using INT_MAX as a budget for CQ processing before (which I
> > think is kinda high).
>
> That was just for keeping the existing logic before we change to
> irq-poll.
Sounds reasonable.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to getting this merged. We can sort out the
tune-ability later on I think.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn at suse.de>
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumshirn at suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-10 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-05 9:42 [PATCH rfc 0/6] convert nvme pci to use irq-poll service Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 9:42 ` [PATCH rfc 1/6] nvme-pci: Split __nvme_process_cq to poll and handle Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 13:21 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 16:52 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 19:49 ` Jon Derrick
2016-10-10 7:25 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 9:42 ` [PATCH rfc 2/6] nvme-pci: Add budget to __nvme_process_cq Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 13:26 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 9:42 ` [PATCH rfc 3/6] nvme-pci: Use irq-poll for completion processing Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 13:40 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 16:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-10 7:47 ` Johannes Thumshirn [this message]
2016-10-05 9:42 ` [PATCH rfc 4/6] nvme: don't consume cq in queue_rq Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 13:42 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 9:42 ` [PATCH rfc 5/6] nvme-pci: open-code polling logic in nvme_poll Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 13:52 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 17:02 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-10 7:49 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 9:42 ` [PATCH rfc 6/6] nvme-pci: Get rid of threaded interrupts Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 13:47 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-05 21:47 ` [PATCH rfc 0/6] convert nvme pci to use irq-poll service Keith Busch
2016-10-05 21:55 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-05 22:49 ` Keith Busch
2016-10-05 22:48 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-27 10:09 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-10-27 10:31 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-10-27 10:58 ` Johannes Thumshirn
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=20161010074751.evzcnvmj4eqol74o@linux-x5ow.site \
--to=jthumshirn@suse.de \
/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