iser: support rdma ack timeout optimization
Since 2c1619edef61a03cb516efaa81750784c3071d10 for linux kernel and 55843c4ab8f559679d28c559cc4d681836be769b for rdma-core, rdma cma supports RDMA_OPTION_ID_ACK_TIMEOUT. It's useful for RDMA out of sequence case. Because this feature is added recently, we have to check this in autogen.sh before building source code. Depend on production enviroument, tunning rdma ack timeout could get the best performance. Suggested by Bart and Ronnie, instead of using a fixed timeout value, add two methods to set rdma ack timeout value. 1, add URL variable 'LIBISCSI_RDMA_ACK_TIMEOUT'. This could works for a specified connection. 2, add env argument 'LIBISCSI_RDMA_ACK_TIMEOUT'. This works as a common setting for all the connection of a process. Test under different packet loss rate and different ack timeout, run fio (iodepth=1) in a guest os, I got this result: latency under packet loss rate 0.00001: timeout 19: avg 170.22, pct99.9 215 timeout 10: avg 160.08, pct99.9 215 timeout 8 : avg 146.39, pct99.9 177 timeout 7 : avg 148.37, pct99.9 211 latency under packet loss rate 0.0001: timeout 19: avg 949.23, pct99.9 306 timeout 10: avg 818.53, pct99.9 378 timeout 8 : avg 615.84, pct99.9 189 timeout 7 : avg 618.89, pct99.9 310 Base on this test report, setting ack timeout to 8(1048.576 usec) is a good choice in my test enviroument. Signed-off-by: zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
This commit is contained in:
committed by
Bart Van Assche
parent
e051995303
commit
6ed1ffb7b2
@@ -152,6 +152,11 @@ if test x"$libiscsi_cv_HAVE_LINUX_ISER" = x"yes"; then
|
||||
fi
|
||||
AM_CONDITIONAL([HAVE_LINUX_ISER], [test $libiscsi_cv_HAVE_LINUX_ISER = yes])
|
||||
|
||||
AC_TRY_COMPILE([
|
||||
#include <rdma/rdma_cma.h>],
|
||||
[return RDMA_OPTION_ID_ACK_TIMEOUT;],
|
||||
[AC_DEFINE([HAVE_RDMA_ACK_TIMEOUT],[1],[Define to 1 if you have RDMA ack timeout support])],)
|
||||
|
||||
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether libcunit is available],
|
||||
[ac_cv_have_cunit],
|
||||
[ac_save_CFLAGS="$CFLAGS"
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user