[SPDK] Re: SPDK socket abstraction layer

[Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker at intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1870 bytes --]

On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 16:21 +0200, Sasha Kotchubievsky wrote:
> > However, I just figured out what's wrong, so maybe you can help me fix it.
> > The
> > zero copy is all working mechanically, except when I get the zero copy
> > completion notification, ee_code is set to SO_EE_CODE_ZEROCOPY_COPIED. So
> > something is not configured correctly in my networking stack and the kernel
> > is
> > doing deferred copies instead. Any ideas what I'd need to do in order to
> > enable
> > this? I'm fairly certain I have it working at my desk on Fedora 30 in
> > loopback,
> > based on the CPU traces I'm seeing, so maybe it's just a matter of
> > installing
> > Fedora 30 on the benchmark system instead.
> 
> I don't know about any specific setting for enabling ZERO-COPY. But, let 
> me double check that.
> 
> > Is it enough to apply those two patches for zero-copy in target ?
> > 
> > Asynchronous writevhttps://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/470523
> > 
> > MSG_ZEROCOPY use in the posix implementation
> > https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/471752
> > Let me get the patches sorted out in a nice series and then you can grab the
> > top
> > of the series for testing.
> 
> This will be great.  On Sunday, we will create an environment like 
> yours  (except OS) and will check the feature.


Here's the patch at the top of the series:
https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/471752

Zero copy is getting enabled on the socket and I do see completion
notifications, but it's always doing a deferred copy. If there was some
description somewhere of what causes the kernel to end up doing a deferred copy
instead of page pinning that would be really useful.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> SPDK mailing list -- spdk(a)lists.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to spdk-leave(a)lists.01.org