Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/3] net/smc: transition to RDMA core CQ pooling

On 22/07/26 5:17 pm, Mahanta Jambigi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/07/26 5:07 pm, D. Wythe wrote:
>> Performance Test: redis-benchmark with max 32 connections per QP
>> Data format: Requests Per Second (RPS), Percentage in brackets
>> represents the gain/loss compared to TCP.
>>
>> | Clients | TCP      | SMC (original)      | SMC (cq_pool)       |
>> |---------|----------|---------------------|---------------------|
>> | c = 1   | 24449    | 31172  (+27%)       | 34039  (+39%)       |
>> | c = 2   | 46420    | 53216  (+14%)       | 64391  (+38%)       |
>> | c = 16  | 159673   | 83668  (-48%)  <--  | 216947 (+36%)       |
>> | c = 32  | 164956   | 97631  (-41%)  <--  | 249376 (+51%)       |
>> | c = 64  | 166322   | 118192 (-29%)  <--  | 249488 (+50%)       |
>> | c = 128 | 167700   | 121497 (-27%)  <--  | 249480 (+48%)       |
>> | c = 256 | 175021   | 146109 (-16%)  <--  | 240384 (+37%)       |
>> | c = 512 | 168987   | 101479 (-40%)  <--  | 226634 (+34%)       |
>>
>> The results demonstrate that this optimization effectively resolves the
>> scalability bottleneck, with RPS increasing by over 110% at c=64
>> compared to the original implementation.
> 
> Thanks for the performance numbers — the scalability improvement at high
> client counts is striking. A few questions to help reproduce these results:
> 
> 1) Was net.smc.smcr_max_conns_per_lgr=32 the value used? The "max 32
> connections per QP" in the description suggests so, but the sysctl
> wasn't explicitly listed.
> 
> 2) Were net.smc.smcr_max_send_wr and net.smc.smcr_max_recv_wr left at
> their defaults, or tuned? With per-link CQs the optimal WR counts may
> differ from the global-CQ case, so knowing whether these were touched
> would help interpret the numbers.
> 
> 3) Was this SMC-R v2? The v2 TX path (smc_wr_tx_get_v2_slot,
> wr_tx_v2_ib) has different concurrency characteristics, so confirming
> the version matters for the contention analysis in patch 2/3 as well.
> 
> 4) Was uperf tested for v4 as well, as we did for v1[1] in
> February-2026? uperf exercises a wider range of message sizes and thread
> counts, so its numbers would strengthen the case — particularly for the
> intermediate client counts (c=16 to c=64) where the original
> implementation regresses below TCP.

@D. Wythe: Gentle reminder regarding my earlier questions. Have you had
a chance to look into them?

> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/