Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:23:55 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     =?utf-8?B?SMOla29u?= Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>,
        Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>,
        OFED mailing list <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RDMA/cma: Make CM response timeout and # CM retries
 configurable
Message-ID: <20190613172355.GF22901@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190226075722.1692315-1-haakon.bugge@oracle.com>
 <174ccd37a9ffa05d0c7c03fe80ff7170a9270824.camel@redhat.com>
 <67B4F337-4C3A-4193-B1EF-42FD4765CBB7@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <67B4F337-4C3A-4193-B1EF-42FD4765CBB7@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 06:58:30PM +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote:

> If you refer to the backlog parameter in rdma_listen(), I cannot see
> it being used at all for IB.
> 
> For CX-3, which is paravirtualized wrt. MAD packets, it is the proxy
> UD receive queue length for the PF driver that can be construed as a
> backlog. 

No, in IB you can drop UD packets if your RQ is full - so the proxy RQ
is really part of the overall RQ on QP1.

The backlog starts once packets are taken off the RQ and begin the
connection accept processing.

> Customer configures #VMs and different workload may lead to way
> different number of CM connections. The proxying of MAD packet
> through the PF driver has a finite packet rate. With 64 VMs, 10.000
> QPs on each, all going down due to a switch failing or similar, you
> have 640.000 DREQs to be sent, and with the finite packet rate of MA
> packets through the PF, this takes more than the current CM
> timeout. And then you re-transmit and increase the burden of the PF
> proxying.

I feel like the performance of all this proxying is too low to support
such a large work load :(

Can it be improved?

Jason