On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:43:30PM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 13:18 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:12:36AM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 08:29 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 05:59:13AM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also proper end align the ibv_kern_send_wr struct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requires a corresponding kernel change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Knut Omang <knut.omang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Mukesh Kacker <mukesh.kacker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/infiniband/kern-abi.h | 1 +
> > > > > src/cmd.c | 2 ++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/infiniband/kern-abi.h b/include/infiniband/kern-abi.h
> > > > > index 8bdeef5..7b1d310 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/infiniband/kern-abi.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/infiniband/kern-abi.h
> > > > > @@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ struct ibv_kern_send_wr {
> > > > > union {
> > > > > struct {
> > > > > __u32 remote_srqn;
> > > > > + __u32 reserved;
> > > > > } xrc;
> > > > > } qp_type;
> > > > > };
> > > > > diff --git a/src/cmd.c b/src/cmd.c
> > > > > index a418ee1..a4e2f75 100644
> > > > > --- a/src/cmd.c
> > > > > +++ b/src/cmd.c
> > > > > @@ -1293,6 +1293,8 @@ int ibv_cmd_post_send(struct ibv_qp *ibqp, struct ibv_send_wr *wr,
> > > > > tmp->wr.ud.remote_qpn = i->wr.ud.remote_qpn;
> > > > > tmp->wr.ud.remote_qkey = i->wr.ud.remote_qkey;
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > + if (ibqp->qp_type == IBV_QPT_XRC_SEND)
> > > > > + tmp->qp_type.xrc.remote_srqn = i->qp_type.xrc.remote_srqn;
> > > > It will be checked for all QPTs and for all consumers. Any chances to
> > > > optimize it?
> > > All QPTs except UD, yes.
> > >
> > > The easiest is perhaps just to remove the test (and set the attribute in all cases), which will work fine
> > > as long as the qp_type union is not used for anything else, but is it worth
> > > the loss of intuitiveness/future potential correctness of the code?
> > Let's concentrate on the present and as far as I see there are no kernel users who
> > need this field xrc.remote_srqn field.
>
> So I assume then that you are ok with this code, given my explanation?
Partially,
I'm fine with the claim about readability and the fact that
this code is not in data-path relaxed me a little bit.
I'm not fine with the part that this code doesn't do anything in kernel.
>
> Thanks,
> Knut
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that this is for user mode post_send implemented by the kernel, not the "fast path"
> > > pure user mode.
> > >
> > > Knut
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > switch (i->opcode) {
> > > > > case IBV_WR_RDMA_WRITE:
> > > > > case IBV_WR_RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM:
> > > > > --
> > > > > git-series 0.8.10
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
