[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1167834348.4187.3.camel@stevo-desktop>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 08:25:48 -0600
From: Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
Cc: rdreier@...co.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, openib-general@...nib.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes
> > @@ -1373,7 +1374,7 @@ int ib_peek_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int wc_
> > static inline int ib_req_notify_cq(struct ib_cq *cq,
> > enum ib_cq_notify cq_notify)
> > {
> > - return cq->device->req_notify_cq(cq, cq_notify);
> > + return cq->device->req_notify_cq(cq, cq_notify, NULL);
> > }
> >
> > /**
>
> Can't say I like this adding overhead in data path operations (and note this
> can't be optimized out). And kernel consumers work without passing it in, so it
> hurts kernel code even for Chelsio. Granted, the cost is small here, but these
> things do tend to add up.
>
> It seems all Chelsio needs is to pass in a consumer index - so, how about a new
> entry point? Something like void set_cq_udata(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_udata *udata)?
>
Adding a new entry point would hurt chelsio's user mode performance if
if then requires 2 kernel transitions to rearm the cq.
Passing in user data is sort of SOP for these sorts of verbs.
How much does passing one more param cost for kernel users?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists