From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: parav@mellanox.com (Parav Pandit)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:52:41 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] nvme-rdma: Support 2 inline data SGEs for write commands.
In-Reply-To: <b91079ca-0d63-8dae-6a3f-281fc0deb636@grimberg.me>
References: <VI1PR0502MB3008FAE182CFAFA906ECF62DD1500@VI1PR0502MB3008.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <b91079ca-0d63-8dae-6a3f-281fc0deb636@grimberg.me>
Message-ID: <VI1PR0502MB3008D4BD11A7F360840347A4D1500@VI1PR0502MB3008.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sagi Grimberg [mailto:sagi at grimberg.me]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:39 PM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav at mellanox.com>; Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> Cc: linux-nvme at lists.infradead.org; axboe at fb.com; keith.busch at intel.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-rdma: Support 2 inline data SGEs for write
> commands.
> 
> 
> > Hi Christoph, Sagi,
> 
> > Does this host side patch look fine? Its unrelated to target side
> implementation.
> 
> I'm still wandering if we want it dynamic according to the target ioccsz (say 1
> per PAGE_SIZE?)

I don't think we are consuming any more resources by increasing to 2SGEs because it's still aligns to hardware's minimum WQE size of 64B or 128B size.
Can we add that additional complexity in incremental manner unless 2 SGEs are less optimal compared to 1?