From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [117.135.210.2]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D045661 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:54:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=117.135.210.2 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721177701; cv=none; b=fN4cz6FUX59ntsvDh7iOJquXRhnCmk/XLBHVsyU2HypQ+zec+MFbqLsqNcT5VGhwIvcBW/9xZeyEv/7cM7uysePpr/nNuxWaI/gKhJH0ra++VfasJ80EIW5NuLjObGcgTQw8nioZDopahiI0M2pPmm/IvWWnpMFAM436vAa+7XU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721177701; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZKwq7LcRRZUvYPzTy3HqmC7u8/eRuHUR0dKL26uLKwI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=sWjEdbRlWAyJ1+TwHbxu0hmOkDlLHeDrjZ8wG6SI2kqdmAZERRFcFFxivSbFHwkwfxBqHGwHT4CMto+eDC/GPmgzfG63qiu4RySmP9/zdTZYQvF9D60aMb8mTCAGW80tBFUhhUSFSGgLV0anQEoQCPh5WaFImMYd4r5+bkakHZ0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=TEq9CJB5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=117.135.210.2 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="TEq9CJB5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version; bh=t5/Ee HzpNabXc5RVd46C/7TAlz4/G8RSGiM4PhgH1hs=; b=TEq9CJB5fJj2t7fvUc32R HEhIeVy08Ot9HIC4g1MWp2IFRlAN+MutULMrOON5qyEylJMT2RuyDSvzBpyWvfEz yklcpK3/Gp1gN3ry1XI6lYRt6uTlUCKgaWv1BhtJ1UEwH1ytdtIy45z0Vzy3b6U3 tljzXsmcuqkGfLG2lE/Yn8= Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [223.166.237.119]) by gzga-smtp-mta-g3-1 (Coremail) with SMTP id _____wD3X502FpdmwwpwBw--.43354S2; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:54:15 +0800 (CST) From: Ping Gan To: hare@suse.de, sagi@grimberg.me, hch@lst.de, kch@nvidia.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: ping.gan@dell.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] nvmet: support polling task for RDMA and TCP Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:53:17 +0800 Message-Id: <20240717005318.109027-1-jacky_gam_2001@163.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.26.2 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:_____wD3X502FpdmwwpwBw--.43354S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoWruw1ruw4UZF48GrWxZF18Zrb_yoW8Jr15pF yfJF1vyan7Kr1Fy3ZFkw42qF4Utw4rAFWqgF97trWrJr1Y9ry2y34xtF1rWFykGr4fWr1j yayDX3yDua1jyaDanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07U6uWJUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: 5mdfy55bjdzsisqqiqqrwthudrp/1tbiSBgfKWXAmTHxfwAAsl > On 7/4/24 10:10, Ping Gan wrote: >>> On 02/07/2024 13:02, Ping Gan wrote: > >>>> And the bandwidth of a node is only 3100MB. While we used the patch >>>> and enable 6 polling task, the bandwidth can be 4000MB. It's a good >>>> improvement. >>> >>> I think you will see similar performance with unbound workqueue and >>> rps. >> >> Yes, I remodified the nvmet-tcp/nvmet-rdma code for supporting >> unbound >> workqueue, and in same prerequisites of above to run test, and >> compared >> the result of unbound workqueue and polling mode task. And I got a >> good >> performance for unbound workqueue. For unbound workqueue TCP we got >> 3850M/node, it's almost equal to polling task. And also tested >> nvmet-rdma we get 5100M/node for unbound workqueue RDMA versus 5600M >> for >> polling task, seems the diff is very small. Anyway, your advice is >> good. >> Do you think we should submit the unbound workqueue patches for >> nvmet-tcp >> and nvmet-rdma to upstream nvmet? > > Please do. I have been using pretty much the same patch during > development of my nvme-tcp scalability patchset, and using WQ_UNBOUND > definitely improves the situation here. Thanks for your confirm! Okay, will do that. Regards, Ping