From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [ewg] nfsrdma fails to write big file, Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:06:13 -0800 Message-ID: References: <9FA59C95FFCBB34EA5E42C1A8573784F02662E58@mtiexch01.mti.com> <4B82D1B4.2030902@opengridcomputing.com> <9FA59C95FFCBB34EA5E42C1A8573784F02662EA8@mtiexch01.mti.com> <9FA59C95FFCBB34EA5E42C1A8573784F02663166@mtiexch01.mti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9FA59C95FFCBB34EA5E42C1A8573784F02663166-SDnKeQl2TTymvrjiD8yIlgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> (Vu Pham's message of "Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:56:09 -0800") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Vu Pham Cc: Tom Tucker , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mahesh Siddheshwar , ewg-ZwoEplunGu1OwGhvXhtEPSCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > + /* > + * Add room for frmr register and invalidate WRs > + * Requests sometimes have two chunks, each chunk > + * requires to have different frmr. The safest > + * WRs required are max_send_wr * 6; however, we > + * get send completions and poll fast enough, it > + * is pretty safe to have max_send_wr * 4. > + */ > + ep->rep_attr.cap.max_send_wr *= 4; Seems like a bad design if there is a possibility of work queue overflow; if you're counting on events occurring in a particular order or completions being handled "fast enough", then your design is going to fail in some high load situations, which I don't think you want. - R. -- Roland Dreier For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html