From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BDAC433EF for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 09:14:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238456AbiA0JOs (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:14:48 -0500 Received: from out30-131.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.131]:33608 "EHLO out30-131.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238417AbiA0JOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 04:14:39 -0500 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R201e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04400;MF=tonylu@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=8;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0V2zNxYh_1643274875; Received: from localhost(mailfrom:tonylu@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0V2zNxYh_1643274875) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 17:14:36 +0800 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 17:14:35 +0800 From: Tony Lu To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , kgraul@linux.ibm.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, RDMA mailing list Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] net/smc: Spread workload over multiple cores Message-ID: Reply-To: Tony Lu References: <20220114054852.38058-1-tonylu@linux.alibaba.com> <20220126152806.GN8034@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org 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: > > > > Yes, I agree with you that the code is old. I think there are two > > problems, one for performance issue, the other one for API refactor. > > > > We are running into the performance issues mentioned in patches in our > > cloud environment. So I think it is more urgent for a real world issue. > > > > The current modification is less intrusive to the code. This makes > > changes simpler. And current implement works for now, this is why I put > > refactor behind. > > We are not requesting to refactor the code, but properly use existing > in-kernel API, while implementing new feature ("Spread workload over > multiple cores"). 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. Thanks, Tony Lu