From: Tom Tucker Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 05/35] svc: Move sk_sendto and sk_recvfrom to svc_xprt_class Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:42 -0500 Message-ID: <1191349842.1565.54.camel@trinity.ogc.int> References: <20071001191426.3250.15371.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <20071001192740.3250.73564.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <1191342596.1565.11.camel@trinity.ogc.int> <4A775179-9659-41B6-999F-8316BA181152@oracle.com> <1191349462.1565.46.camel@trinity.ogc.int> Reply-To: tom@opengridcomputing.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: neilb@suse.de, bfields@fieldses.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, gnb@sgi.com To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcmXG-0000in-72 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:31:58 -0700 Received: from 209-198-142-2-host.prismnet.net ([209.198.142.2] helo=smtp.opengridcomputing.com) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1IcmXI-00054n-SI for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:32:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1191349462.1565.46.camel@trinity.ogc.int> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 13:24 -0500, Tom Tucker wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:57 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Tom Tucker wrote: > > [...snip...] > > > >> > > >> It looks like on the client side, I didn't put the ops vector or the > > >> payload maximum in the class structure at all... 6 of one, half dozen > > >> of the other. Using the class's value of the ops and payload maximum > > >> would save some space in the svc_xprt, though, come to think of it. > > >> > > > > > > cache thing again. let's see how Greg weighs in. > > > > The ops vector itself will be in some other CPU's memory most of the > > time on big systems. > > Well this is a good point. Unless we implement thread pools for svc_xprt > memory allocation, it won't likely buy you much. > Actually, I'm having second thoughts. Since the svc_xprt structure is allocated on the rqstp thread in which the transport is going to be used, won't the memory be local to the allocating processor on a NUMA system? > > I don't see how you can avoid a peek... but > > since it's a constant, caching should protect you most of the time, yes? > > > > > Chuck Lever > > chuck.lever@oracle.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs