From: Ursula Braun <ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: utz.bacher@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, ursula.braun@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 0/5] net: implement SMC-R solution
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:04:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1438369492.12528.6.camel@BR9GV9YG.de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150726.161530.2192841818929026804.davem@davemloft.net>
On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 16:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I'm really sorry but this is the same rabbit hole and set of claims
> that have been bullhorned my way for RDMA over the years and I still
> don't buy it.
>
> None of the RDMA'ish proponents ever talk about what you _don't_ get
> when this stuff triggers.
>
> No netfilter.
>
> No packet scheduler.
>
> No classifier actions.
>
> No BPF.
>
> No bridging.
>
> Basically, every single interesting feature of the Linux networking
> goes away once this RDMA thing happens.
Correct, Dave: All the RDMA protocols do not benefit from packet-based
features of Linux networking. Which is why SMC-R starts with TCP to
maintain some of it. This allows for adhering to the TCP management
model, e.g. for addressing and capability to intercept connection
establishment. We did SMC-R for a good reason -- bringing value to the
mainframe datacenter environment, and potentially other setups, too; and
that includes performance benefits.
>
> Furthermore the benchmarks are carefully choosen to exemplify the
> perfect environment for this feature to excell at.
Our benchmarks shown are by no means "some carefully chosen" selection.
Would you like to see some other benchmarks?
>
> Sorry, I don't want any of this in our core networking stack. You'll
> have to support this completely outside of the TCP implementation and
> core networking code, and therefore have it %100 in your own separate
> module with your own can of worms like the Infiniband et al. people
> do.
Since you are asking for a solution "100% in our own separate module
with our own can of worms", we have to give up the transparent detection
whether a communication peer can do SMC-R or not (this has been the
purpose of the rejected TCP hooks). Instead, we want just the new
self-contained SMC-R socket family added to the kernel. We will adapt
the code accordingly to get rid of TCP experimental options. Is it ok
for you, if we send the whole new code for /net/smc/ in one single patch
since all of it is required for doing the job, or prefer smaller chunks
(which, if half way applied, won't get real functionality)?
Kind regards, Ursula
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-31 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-14 12:42 [PATCH V2 net-next 0/3] net: implement SMC-R solution Ursula Braun
2015-07-14 12:42 ` [PATCH V2 net-next 1/3] tcp: introduce TCP experimental option for SMC Ursula Braun
2015-07-16 4:28 ` David Miller
2015-07-22 8:59 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 0/5] net: implement SMC-R solution Ursula Braun
2015-07-22 8:59 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 1/5] tcp: TCP experimental option for SMC - definitions Ursula Braun
2015-07-22 8:59 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 2/5] tcp: TCP experimental option for SMC - TCP hooks Ursula Braun
2015-07-22 8:59 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 3/5] net: introduce socket family constants Ursula Braun
2015-07-22 8:59 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 4/5] smc: introduce socket family AF_SMC Ursula Braun
2015-07-22 8:59 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 5/5] smc: increase / decrease static key Ursula Braun
2015-07-26 23:15 ` [PATCH V3 net-next 0/5] net: implement SMC-R solution David Miller
2015-07-31 19:04 ` Ursula Braun [this message]
2015-08-21 11:30 ` [PATCH V4 net-next 0/2] " Ursula Braun
2015-08-21 11:30 ` [PATCH V4 net-next 1/2] net: introduce socket family constants Ursula Braun
2015-08-21 11:30 ` [PATCH V4 net-next 2/2] smc: introduce socket family AF_SMC Ursula Braun
2015-08-25 18:18 ` [PATCH V4 net-next 0/2] net: implement SMC-R solution David Miller
2015-07-14 12:42 ` [PATCH V2 net-next 2/3] net: introduce socket family constants Ursula Braun
2015-07-16 4:29 ` David Miller
2015-07-14 12:42 ` [PATCH V2 net-next 3/3] smc: introduce socket family AF_SMC Ursula Braun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1438369492.12528.6.camel@BR9GV9YG.de.ibm.com \
--to=ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=ursula.braun@de.ibm.com \
--cc=utz.bacher@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.