On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 03:34:50PM +0200, Michael Guralnik wrote:
> From: Aharon Landau <aharonl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Explicit ODP mkey doesn't have unique properties. It shares the same
> properties as the order 18 cache entry. There is no need to devote a special
> entry for that.
IMR is "implicit mr" for implicit ODP, the commit message is wrong
> @@ -1591,20 +1593,8 @@ void mlx5_odp_init_mkey_cache_entry(struct mlx5_cache_ent *ent)
> {
> if (!(ent->dev->odp_caps.general_caps & IB_ODP_SUPPORT_IMPLICIT))
> return;
> -
> - switch (ent->order - 2) {
> - case MLX5_IMR_MTT_CACHE_ENTRY:
> - ent->ndescs = MLX5_IMR_MTT_ENTRIES;
> - ent->access_mode = MLX5_MKC_ACCESS_MODE_MTT;
> - ent->limit = 0;
> - break;
> -
> - case MLX5_IMR_KSM_CACHE_ENTRY:
> - ent->ndescs = mlx5_imr_ksm_entries;
> - ent->access_mode = MLX5_MKC_ACCESS_MODE_KSM;
> - ent->limit = 0;
> - break;
> - }
> + ent->ndescs = mlx5_imr_ksm_entries;
> + ent->access_mode = MLX5_MKC_ACCESS_MODE_KSM;
And you didn't answer my question, is this URMable?
Because I don't quite understand how this can work at this point, for
lower orders the access_mode is assumed to be MTT, a KLM cannot be put
in a low order entry at this point.
Ideally you'd teach UMR to switch between MTT/KSM and then the cache
is fine, size the amount of space required based on the number of
bytes in the memory.
Jason
