![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:42:12AM +0100, David Addison wrote: > >This doesn't scale well as more cards are added to the box. > >I think I understand why it's good for single cards though. > > With the IOPROC patch the device driver hooks are registered on a per > process or perhaps better still, a per VMA basis. I was originally thinking the registrations are global (for all memory) and not per process. Per process or per VMA seems reasonable to me. > And for processes/VMAs where there are no registrations the overhead > is very low. Yes - thanks. I'm still reading the LKML thread you started: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/26/198 In particular, the comments from Brice Goglin: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/26/222 openib.org folks can find the IOPROC patch for 2.6.12-rc3 archived here: http://lkml.org/lkml/diff/2005/4/26/198/1 > With multiple cards in a box, all using different device drivers, > I guess there could end up being multiple registrations per process/VMA. > But I'm not sure this will be a common case for RDMA use in real life. I agree. Gateways between fabrics is the only case I can think of. This won't be a problem until someone at a large national lab tries to connect two "legacy" fabrics together. thanks, grant - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-03 17:40 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||