[ofa-general] Re: [PATCHv2] IB/mad: fix duplicated kernel thread name

[Or Gerlitz]

Sean Hefty wrote:
>> Sorry but "improve data locality" is not enough information for me to 
>> understand why the IB CM --neeed-- to spawn n kernel threads on my 
>> n-core system, after all its slow path and the data does not moves on 
>> QP1, what's the story here? and if it needs thread-per-cpu, why not 
>> use the system threads/softirqs as does the TCP/IP stack connection 
>> mgmt code?
> 
> IMO, if we're going to have multiple cores, then we should create 
> multiple threads to use them.  This becomes more important as the number 
> of cores increases.  (The overhead of a non-running thread can't be that 
> much.)  

Sean,

Can you explain why would not the IB CM use the thread context provided 
by the mad layer?

Second, if the CM needs a different context why not use the system 
threads? I understood from Michael's reply that the CM code relies on 
some thread/queue flushing at the time of CM ID destruction, is it an 
implementation issue that can change? if not, can't one dedicated thread 
do the job?

Or.