From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Date: 2007-08-08 22:20:59
From: Shirley Ma <redacted>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:14:13 -0700
Dave, could you please hold this portion of the patch for a moment. I will
test this patch ASAP. According to our previous experience, this changes
significant changes some IPoIB driver performance.
I reverted everything Roland had an issue with, I got tired of arguing
my position and doing all of the coding too. He won.
From: Roland Dreier <hidden> Date: 2007-08-09 17:49:42
> > Dave, could you please hold this portion of the patch for a moment. I will
> > test this patch ASAP. According to our previous experience, this changes
> > significant changes some IPoIB driver performance.
>
> I reverted everything Roland had an issue with, I got tired of arguing
> my position and doing all of the coding too. He won.
Why does this have to become a contest of wills where someone wins? I
wish we could just have a technical discussion and get to the best
solution. You posted an RFC, and I commented on the parts where I
believe I have some expertise. We're all on the same side here.
Shirley, I think it would still be useful to run benchmarks of IPoIB
on ehca with Dave's NAPI patches, both V5 that changed the "missed
event" behavior and V6 that didn't. At least I'm curious to know how
much the difference is.
- R.
From: Shirley Ma <hidden> Date: 2007-08-09 18:17:11
Hello Roland,
Shirley, I think it would still be useful to run benchmarks of IPoIB
on ehca with Dave's NAPI patches, both V5 that changed the "missed
event" behavior and V6 that didn't. At least I'm curious to know how
much the difference is.
- R.
The performance difference was huge before. Most of the time the poll more
method was only polling one packet again and agin.
Yes, we will definitely run the performance measurement, but I have
lowered this task priority since Dave has V6 version. Actually IPoIB is
not the only one device using rescheduling instead of polling more for
NAPI. I think it's not a bad idea to do so.
Thanks
Shirley