On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 17:00 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > No, it won't need 2 transitions - just an extra function call,
> > > so it won't hurt performance - it would improve performance.
> > >
> > > ib_uverbs_req_notify_cq would call
> > >
> > > ib_uverbs_req_notify_cq()
> > > {
> > > ib_set_cq_udata(cq, udata)
> > > ib_req_notify_cq(cq, cmd.solicited_only ?
> > > IB_CQ_SOLICITED : IB_CQ_NEXT_COMP);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > ib_set_cq_udata() would transition into the kernel to pass in the
> > consumer's index. In addition, ib_req_notify_cq would also transition
> > into the kernel since its not a bypass function for chelsio.
>
> We misunderstand each other.
>
> ib_uverbs_req_notify_cq is in drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c -
> all this code runs inside the IB_USER_VERBS_CMD_REQ_NOTIFY_CQ command,
> so there is a single user to kernel transition.
>
Oh I see.
This seems like a lot of extra code to avoid passing one extra arg to
the driver's req_notify_cq verb. I'd appreciate other folk's input on
how important they think this is.
If you insist, then I'll run some tests specifically in kernel mode and
see how this affects mthca's req_notify performance.
Steve.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
