On 2022/1/6 8:01, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 01:00:42AM +0000, yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> 1) In kernel, current SoftRoCE copies the content of struct rdma to RETH
>> and copies the content of struct atomic to AtomicETH.
>> 2) IBTA defines that RDMA Atomic Write uses RETH + payload.
>> According to these two reasons, I perfer to tweak the existing struct rdma.
> No this is basically meaningless
>
> The wr struct is designed as a 'tagged union' where the op specified
> which union is in effect.
>
> It turns out that the op generally specifies the network headers as
> well, but that is just a side effect.
>
>>>> How about adding a member in struct rdma? for example:
>>>> struct {
>>>> uint64_t remote_addr;
>>>> uint32_t rkey;
>>>> uint64_t wr_value:
>>>> } rdma;
>>> Yes, that's what Tomasz and I were suggesting - a new template for the
>>> ATOMIC_WRITE request payload. The three fields are to be supplied by
>>> the verb consumer when posting the work request.
>> OK, I will update the patch in this way.
> We are not extending the ib_send_wr anymore anyhow.
>
> You should implement new ops inside struct ibv_qp_ex as function
> calls.
Hi Jason,
For SoftRoCE, do you mean that I only need to extend struct rxe_send_wr
and add ibv_wr_rdma_atomic_write() ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
struct rxe_send_wr {
...
struct {
__aligned_u64 remote_addr;
+ __aligned_u64 atomic_wr;
__u32 rkey;
__u32 reserved;
} rdma;
...
}
static inline void ibv_wr_rdma_atomic_write(struct ibv_qp_ex *qp,
uint32_t rkey,
uint64_t remote_addr)
{
qp->wr_rdma_atomic_write(qp, rkey, remote_addr);
}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, could you tell me why we cannot extend struct ibv_send_wr for
ibv_post_send()?
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
> Jason
