On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:36:45PM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote:
> -----ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
>
> >@@ -506,11 +513,12 @@ static int siw_tx_hdt(struct siw_iwarp_tx
> >*c_tx, struct socket *s)
> > page_array[seg] = p;
> >
> > if (!c_tx->use_sendpage) {
> >- iov[seg].iov_base = kmap(p) + fp_off;
> >- iov[seg].iov_len = plen;
> >+ void *kaddr = kmap_local_page(page_array[seg]);
>
> we can use 'kmap_local_page(p)' here
Yes but I actually did this on purpose as it makes the code read clearly that
the mapping is 'seg' element of the array. Do you prefer 'p' because this is a
performant path?
> >
> > /* Remember for later kunmap() */
> > kmap_mask |= BIT(seg);
> >+ iov[seg].iov_base = kaddr + fp_off;
> >+ iov[seg].iov_len = plen;
> >
> > if (do_crc)
> > crypto_shash_update(
> >@@ -518,7 +526,7 @@ static int siw_tx_hdt(struct siw_iwarp_tx *c_tx,
> >struct socket *s)
> > iov[seg].iov_base,
> > plen);
>
> This patch does not apply for me. Would I have to install first
> your [Patch 3/4] -- since the current patch references kmap_local_page()
> already? Maybe it is better to apply if it would be just one siw
> related patch in that series?
Yes the other patch goes first. I split it out to make this more difficult
change more reviewable. I could squash them as it is probably straight forward
enough but I've been careful with this in other subsystems.
Jason, do you have any issue with squashing the 2 patches?
>
>
>
> > } else if (do_crc) {
> >- kaddr = kmap_local_page(p);
> >+ kaddr = kmap_local_page(page_array[seg]);
>
> using 'kmap_local_page(p)' as you had it is straightforward
> and I would prefer it.
OK. I think this reads cleaner but I can see 'p' being more performant.
>
> > crypto_shash_update(c_tx->mpa_crc_hd,
> > kaddr + fp_off,
> > plen);
> >@@ -542,7 +550,7 @@ static int siw_tx_hdt(struct siw_iwarp_tx *c_tx,
> >struct socket *s)
> >
> > if (++seg > (int)MAX_ARRAY) {
> > siw_dbg_qp(tx_qp(c_tx), "to many fragments\n");
> >- siw_unmap_pages(page_array, kmap_mask);
> >+ siw_unmap_pages(iov, kmap_mask, MAX_ARRAY);
>
> to minimize the iterations over the byte array in 'siw_unmap_pages()',
> we may pass seg-1 instead of MAX_ARRAY
Sounds good.
>
>
> > wqe->processed -= c_tx->bytes_unsent;
> > rv = -EMSGSIZE;
> > goto done_crc;
> >@@ -593,7 +601,7 @@ static int siw_tx_hdt(struct siw_iwarp_tx *c_tx,
> >struct socket *s)
> > } else {
> > rv = kernel_sendmsg(s, &msg, iov, seg + 1,
> > hdr_len + data_len + trl_len);
> >- siw_unmap_pages(page_array, kmap_mask);
> >+ siw_unmap_pages(iov, kmap_mask, MAX_ARRAY);
>
> to minimize the iterations over the byte array in 'siw_unmap_pages()',
> we may pass seg instead of MAX_ARRAY
Will do.
Thanks for the review! :-D
Ira
