> > On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > >>>> Moving the QP into error state right after with rdma_disconnect > >>>> you are not sure that none of the subset of the invalidations > >>>> that _were_ posted completed and you get the corresponding MRs > >>>> in a bogus state... > >>> > >>> Moving the QP to error state and then draining the CQs means > >>> that all LOCAL_INV WRs that managed to get posted will get > >>> completed or flushed. That's already handled today. > >>> > >>> It's the WRs that didn't get posted that I'm worried about > >>> in this patch. > >>> > >>> Are there RDMA consumers in the kernel that use that third > >>> argument to recover when LOCAL_INV WRs cannot be posted? > >> > >> None :) > >> > >>>>> I suppose I could reset these MRs instead (that is, > >>>>> pass them to ib_dereg_mr). > >>>> > >>>> Or, just wait for a completion for those that were posted > >>>> and then all the MRs are in a consistent state. > >>> > >>> When a LOCAL_INV completes with IB_WC_SUCCESS, the associated > >>> MR is in a known state (ie, invalid). > >>> > >>> The WRs that flush mean the associated MRs are not in a known > >>> state. Sometimes the MR state is different than the hardware > >>> state, for example. Trying to do anything with one of these > >>> inconsistent MRs results in IB_WC_BIND_MW_ERR until the thing > >>> is deregistered. > >> > >> Correct. > >> > > > > It is legal to invalidate an MR that is not in the valid state. So you don't > > have to deregister it, you can assume it is valid and post another LINV WR. > > I've tried that. Once the MR is inconsistent, even LOCAL_INV > does not work. > Maybe IB Verbs don't mandate that invalidating an invalid MR must be allowed? (looking at the verbs spec now). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
