On 7/23/2018 11:53 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2018 7:49 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:25:32AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> [ 2032.194376] nvme nvme0: failed to connect queue: 9 ret=-18
>>>>>
>>>>> queue 9 is not mapped (overlap).
>>>>> please try the bellow:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems to work. Here are three mapping cases: each vector on its
>>>> own cpu, each vector on 1 cpu within the local numa node, and each
>>>> vector having all cpus in its numa node. The 2nd mapping looks kinda
>>>> funny, but I think it achieved what you wanted? And all the cases
>>>> resulted in successful connections.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing this.
>>> I slightly improved the setting of the left CPUs and actually used
>>> Sagi's
>>> initial proposal.
>>>
>>> Sagi,
>>> please review the attached patch and let me know if I should add your
>>> signature on it.
>>> I'll run some perf test early next week on it (meanwhile I run
>>> login/logout
>>> with different num_queues successfully and irq settings).
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>> It will be great if you can apply the attached in your system and
>>> send your
>>> findings.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Max,
>>
>> So the conlusion to this thread is that Leon's mlx5 patch needs to wait
>> until this block-mq patch is accepted?
>
> Yes, since nvmf is the only user of this function.
> Still waiting for comments on the suggested patch :)
Hey Sagi, what do you think of Max's patch?
Max, should you resend this in a form suitable for merging?
Thanks,
Steve.
