From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BE1DDE9F for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:53:00 +1000 (EST) To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] IB/ehca: Support for multiple event queues References: <20070717043740.GB8527@mellanox.co.il> From: Roland Dreier Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:52:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070717043740.GB8527@mellanox.co.il> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message of "Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:37:40 +0300") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Joachim Fenkes , LKML , LinuxPPC-Dev , Hoang-Nam Nguyen , OF-General , Stefan Roscher List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Here's some anecdotal evidence :) > http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2007-May/035758.html Right, but then we went on to say that we probably want to use multiple vectors to separate out multiple HCA ports rather than send/sreceive on the same port. And the current IPoIB implementation of having that second CQ seems suboptimal anyway, since it seems to leave us susceptible to the interrupt overload that NAPI was supposed to solve. At a higher level, I'm left wondering why nobody talked about multiple EQs during the last months of the 2.6.22 process and now all of a sudden it becomes urgent in the last few days of the 2.6.23 merge window. That's not really how I like to merge features.... - R.