On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Alexander Kabaev <kab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 21:46:19 +0000 (UTC) > Jim Harris <jimhar...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Author: jimharris > > Date: Wed Apr 8 21:46:18 2015 > > New Revision: 281280 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/281280 > > > > Log: > > nvme: fall back to a smaller MSI-X vector allocation if necessary > > > > Previously, if per-CPU MSI-X vectors could not be allocated, > > nvme(4) would fall back to INTx with a single I/O queue pair. > > This change will still fall back to a single I/O queue pair, but > > allocate MSI-X vectors instead of reverting to INTx. > > > > MFC after: 1 week > > Sponsored by: Intel > > > > Modified: > > head/sys/dev/nvme/nvme_ctrlr.c > > > > Modified: head/sys/dev/nvme/nvme_ctrlr.c > > > ============================================================================== > > --- head/sys/dev/nvme/nvme_ctrlr.c Wed Apr 8 21:10:13 > > 2015 (r281279) +++ head/sys/dev/nvme/nvme_ctrlr.c Wed > > Apr 8 21:46:18 2015 (r281280) @@ -1144,9 +1144,17 @@ > > nvme_ctrlr_construct(struct nvme_control /* One vector per IO queue, > > plus one vector for admin queue. */ num_vectors = > > ctrlr->num_io_queues + 1; > > - if (pci_msix_count(dev) < num_vectors) { > > + /* > > + * If we cannot even allocate 2 vectors (one for admin, one > > for > > + * I/O), then revert to INTx. > > + */ > > + if (pci_msix_count(dev) < 2) { > > ctrlr->msix_enabled = 0; > > goto intx; > > + } else if (pci_msix_count(dev) < num_vectors) { > > + ctrlr->per_cpu_io_queues = FALSE; > > + ctrlr->num_io_queues = 1; > > + num_vectors = 2; /* one for admin, one for I/O */ > > } > > > > if (pci_alloc_msix(dev, &num_vectors) != 0) { > > Huh, Linux just falls back to as many vectors as it can and just > allocates them between per-cpu queues in a round-robin manner. I think > is is a better approach than what we have here, would you consider it? > This has been on my todo list for a while but have not had time to tackle it. I'm hoping to spend some time on it in the next couple of weeks though. I would prefer it to be smarter than just round-robin. For example, if multiple cores are sharing a queue pair, we probably want those cores to be on the same CPU socket. Or if hyper-threading is enabled, we likely want to assign those logical cores to the same queue pair. But short-term, yes - simple round-robin would be better than the current fallback scheme. -Jim > -- > Alexander Kabaev > _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
