On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 10:24 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > Before this patch > > the completions from each CQ were processed sequentially. That's a big > > change so I think this should be mentioned clearly in the header above > > ib_process_cq_direct(). > > Note that I now see that the cq lock is not sufficient for mutual > exclusion here because we're referencing cq->wc array outside of it. > > There are three options I see here: > 1. we'll need to allocate a different wc array for polling mode, > perhaps a smaller one? > 2. Export __ib_process_cq (in some form) with an option to pass in a wc > array. > 3. Simply not support non-selective polling but it seems like a shame... > > Any thoughts? I doubt it is possible to come up with an algorithm that recognizes whether or not two different ib_process_cq() calls are serialized. So the ib_process_cq() caller will have to provide that information. How about adding an ib_wc array argument to ib_process_cq() and modifying __ib_process_cq() such that it uses that array if specified and cq->wc otherwise? Bart.-- 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
