On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 06:26:22PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:49:03PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:10:15PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Moni Shoua <monis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Telling the HCA that page fault handling is done and QP can resume
> > > its flow is done in the context of the page fault handler. This blocks
> > > the handling of the next work in queue without a need.
> > > Call the PAGE_FAULT_RESUME command in an asynchronous manner and free
> > > the workqueue to pick the next work item for handling. All tasks that
> > > were executed after PAGE_FAULT_RESUME need to be done now
> > > in the callback of the asynchronous command mechanism.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Moni Shoua <monis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/odp.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > include/linux/mlx5/driver.h | 3 +
> > > 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/odp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/odp.c
> > > index abce55b8b9ba..0c4f469cdd5b 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/odp.c
> > > @@ -298,20 +298,78 @@ void mlx5_ib_internal_fill_odp_caps(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev)
> > > return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +struct pfault_resume_cb_ctx {
> > > + struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev;
> > > + struct mlx5_core_rsc_common *res;
> > > + struct mlx5_pagefault *pfault;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static void page_fault_resume_callback(int status, void *context)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pfault_resume_cb_ctx *ctx = context;
> > > + struct mlx5_pagefault *pfault = ctx->pfault;
> > > +
> > > + if (status)
> > > + mlx5_ib_err(ctx->dev, "Resolve the page fault failed with status %d\n",
> > > + status);
> > > +
> > > + if (ctx->res)
> > > + mlx5_core_res_put(ctx->res);
> > > + kfree(pfault);
> > > + kfree(ctx);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void mlx5_ib_page_fault_resume(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
> > > + struct mlx5_core_rsc_common *res,
> > > struct mlx5_pagefault *pfault,
> > > - int error)
> > > + int error,
> > > + bool async)
> > > {
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + u32 *out = pfault->out_pf_resume;
> > > + u32 *in = pfault->in_pf_resume;
> > > + u32 token = pfault->token;
> > > int wq_num = pfault->event_subtype == MLX5_PFAULT_SUBTYPE_WQE ?
> > > - pfault->wqe.wq_num : pfault->token;
> > > - int ret = mlx5_core_page_fault_resume(dev->mdev,
> > > - pfault->token,
> > > - wq_num,
> > > - pfault->type,
> > > - error);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > - mlx5_ib_err(dev, "Failed to resolve the page fault on WQ 0x%x\n",
> > > - wq_num);
> > > + pfault->wqe.wq_num : pfault->token;
> > > + u8 type = pfault->type;
> > > + struct pfault_resume_cb_ctx *ctx = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + if (async)
> > > + ctx = kmalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Why not allocate this ctx ast part of the mlx5_pagefault and avoid
> > this allocation failure strategy?
>
> It is another way to implement it, both of them are correct.
.. I think it is alot better to move this allocation, it gets rid of
this ugly duplicated code
> Can I assume that we can progress with patches except patch #2?
Lets drop this one too..
Jason
