From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxg@mellanox.com (Max Gurtovoy) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:57:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] nvmet-rdma: SRQ per completion vector In-Reply-To: <20171118125229.GT18825@mtr-leonro.local> References: <1510852885-25519-1-git-send-email-maxg@mellanox.com> <263c6c9d-0dd2-da4f-12a9-efefd361e592@grimberg.me> <20171118125229.GT18825@mtr-leonro.local> Message-ID: <935af437-d69e-e258-c00a-8bf9a04f9988@mellanox.com> On 11/18/2017 2:52 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017@09:32:42PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> >> >> On 11/16/2017 8:36 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >>> >>>> Since there is an active discussion regarding the CQ pool >>>> architecture, I decided to push >>>> this feature (maybe it can be pushed before CQ pool). >>>> >>>> This is a new feature for NVMEoF RDMA target, >>> >>> Any chance having this for the rest? isert, srpt, svcrdma? >>> >> >> We can implement it for isert, but I think it's better to see how the CQ >> pool will be defined first. >> It can bring a big benefit and improvement for ib_srpt (similar to NVMEoF >> target) but I'm not sure if I can commit for that one soon.. > > Too bad, but I don't see inclusion of generic SRQ pool code in RDMA > subsystem without actual conversion of existing ULP clients. > > Thanks > This patchset adds this feature to NVMEoF target so actually there are ULPs that use it. Same issue we have with mr_pool that only RDMA rw.c use it (Now we're adding it to NVMEoF initiators too - in review). I can add srq_pool to iSER target code but I don't want to re-write it again in few weeks, when the CQ pool will be added. Regarding other ULPs, we don't have a testing environment for them so I prefer not to commit on their implementation in the near future. I don't know why we can't add this feature "as is". Other ULPs maintainers might use it once it will be pushed.