From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A9F1862; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730377839; cv=none; b=mm6xlgvY+zquPVJNDAhd3BZvGjHC5JiY6Fs6Fm7xeje+st1Pfo1N6TlJrLxNrb607hsTYZE35wRtfRKDwbQakDMN4p52Yyc1Zy9QGDanH/6DoB09y48e00QHAxBfez43JK100i1G2kNrJaDPEo1LEYXJOc2Qv+5sCC9O8tIWpgk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730377839; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xFuBagS1Z9A145LOVwOZ0ezrppfjhWVatJEXi9PIjHs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=h1VVAAmyLNHq5lX3U+bp31OYl4i9auMxEykgxWU0+fUplx0Ag2Dqp+R2dwdnweMxuZ6F5Zyi5urTcT1zW8gqgennfYG7dZp+IFwpb44dnRY/igDtslraU4g59bVYLh/eDKDJ44qHtgvdUjO+D+cniXPXxfD6YH0J8OziVnzm6zQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=CW3YEDyb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="CW3YEDyb" Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 49V2jOnw014991; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:26 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=Za2voK f14+b2cUK+VEnxfTcMq0XSBgUjrgqDzeohxJI=; b=CW3YEDyb8J1U9fRSVdPj2t q1KZYy6DT66GFHuRQwMV5pb23GBTc/rPWSeKVlBNcvk+l0kFYPQO3W54LZypVcJx KFMePaF1SZRlQxmoKREPgkd59Vhd8Y4MXCJaFlFl2h3453x61g/P5p9OnZnPSLhJ Nw70HIfyyZj98RewuO6lgsptfuGSPToLreEYJPopyvxbvBICkFH08gVAlId4u5wc afmwPHwJ2u9fNBTc2Awu3OmIH2cv3E+Yd1VDNn0gGEseHbE6fvngJ0GBSh84oBXZ arPoQff1Y0FnLKW6zra7xmApL7aLyg/5Ogoo7TiEWsJ8aUrNzEkXm/VJBZdd9cbQ == Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42kkbn5u5r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0360072.ppops.net (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.0.8/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 49VCSwqC002743; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:25 GMT Received: from ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dc.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.220]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42kkbn5u5n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 49V8ereZ017386; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:24 GMT Received: from smtprelay01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.227]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42harsn196-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:24 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.103]) by smtprelay01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 49VCULbZ40698266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:21 GMT Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE1020040; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288662004B; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-ce58cfcc-320b-11b2-a85c-85e19b5285e0 (unknown [9.171.39.241]) by smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:30:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:30:17 +0100 From: Halil Pasic To: Dust Li Cc: Wenjia Zhang , Wen Gu , "D. Wythe" , Tony Lu , David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Jan Karcher , Gerd Bayer , Alexandra Winter , Nils Hoppmann , Niklas Schnell , Thorsten Winkler , Karsten Graul , Stefan Raspl , Halil Pasic Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: increase SMC_WR_BUF_CNT Message-ID: <20241031133017.682be72b.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20241025235839.GD36583@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20241025074619.59864-1-wenjia@linux.ibm.com> <20241025235839.GD36583@linux.alibaba.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: TJk7lCcI3xYe59SbJbLRVaIY-DSFMyzK X-Proofpoint-GUID: P_GDh0_Y8rznInJuJ41tMm9-ETnM7C5w X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1051,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.62.30 definitions=2024-10-15_01,2024-10-11_01,2024-09-30_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=997 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2409260000 definitions=main-2410310095 On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 07:58:39 +0800 Dust Li wrote: > >For some reason include/linux/wait.h does not offer a top level wrapper > >macro for wait_event with interruptible, exclusive and timeout. I did > >not spend too many cycles on thinking if that is even a combination that > >makes sense (on the quick I don't see why not) and conversely I > >refrained from making an attempt to accomplish the interruptible, > >exclusive and timeout combo by using the abstraction-wise lower > >level __wait_event interface. > > > >To alleviate the tx performance bottleneck and the CPU overhead due to > >the spinlock contention, let us increase SMC_WR_BUF_CNT to 256. > > Hi, > > Have you tested other values, such as 64? In our internal version, we > have used 64 for some time. Yes we have, but I'm not sure the data is still to be found. Let me do some digging. > > Increasing this to 256 will require a 36K continuous physical memory > allocation in smc_wr_alloc_link_mem(). Based on my experience, this may > fail on servers that have been running for a long time and have > fragmented memory. Good point! It is possible that I did not give sufficient thought to this aspect. Regards, Halil