Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] net/smc: Spread workload over multiple cores

Tony Lu
2022-02-09T09:53:20Z

On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 05:50:48PM +0100, Karsten Graul wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 07:55, Tony Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 03:52:36PM +0100, Karsten Graul wrote:
> >> On 27/01/2022 10:50, Tony Lu wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:25:41AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 05:14:35PM +0800, Tony Lu wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:47:09AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 03:59:36PM +0800, Tony Lu wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry for that if I missed something about properly using existing
> >>>>> in-kernel API. I am not sure the proper API is to use ib_cq_pool_get()
> >>>>> and ib_cq_pool_put()?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If so, these APIs doesn't suit for current smc's usage, I have to
> >>>>> refactor logic (tasklet and wr_id) in smc. I think it is a huge work
> >>>>> and should do it with full discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> This discussion is not going anywhere. Just to summarize, we (Jason and I)
> >>>> are asking to use existing API, from the beginning.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I can't agree more with you about using existing API and I have
> >>> tried them earlier. The existing APIs are easy to use if I wrote a new
> >>> logic. I also don't want to repeat the codes.
> >>>
> >>> The main obstacle is that the packet and wr processing of smc is
> >>> tightly bound to the old API and not easy to replace with existing API.
> >>>
> >>> To solve a real issue, I have to fix it based on the old API. If using
> >>> existing API in this patch, I have to refactor smc logics which needs
> >>> more time. Our production tree is synced with smc next. So I choose to
> >>> fix this issue first, then refactor these logic to fit existing API once
> >>> and for all.
> >>
> >> While I understand your approach to fix the issue first I need to say
> >> that such interim fixes create an significant amount of effort that has to
> >> be spent for review and test for others. And there is the increased risk
> >> to introduce new bugs by just this only-for-now fix.
> >
> > Let's back to this patch itself. This approach spreads CQs to different
> > vectors, it tries to solve this issue under current design and not to
> > introduce more changes to make it easier to review and test. It severely
> > limits the performance of SMC when replacing TCP. This patch tries to
> > reduce the gap between SMC and TCP.
> >
> > To use newer API, it should have a lots of work to do with wr process
> > logic, for example remove tasklet handler, refactor wr_id logic. I have
> > no idea if we should do this? If it's okay and got your permission, I
> > will do this in the next patch.
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I think there was quite a discussion now about this patch series and the conclusion from
> the RDMA list and from my side was that if this code is changed it should be done using
> the new API. The current version re-implements code that is already available there.
>
> I agree that using the new API is the way to go, and I am in for any early discussions
> about the changes that are needed.
>

Thank you for pointing me to the sure way.

I am working on this. I will send the complete refactor version with the
new API later.

Best regards,
Tony Lu