On 10/7/19 6:59 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
/*
- * Check if the device might use memory registration. This is currently only
- * true for iWarp devices. In the future we can hopefully fine tune this based
- * on HCA driver input.
+ * Check if the device might use memory registration. This is currently
+ * true for iWarp devices and devices that have optimized SGL registration
+ * logic.
*/
The following sentence in the above comment looks confusing to me:
"Check if the device might use memory registration." That sentence
suggests that the HCA decides whether or not to use memory registration.
Isn't it the RDMA R/W code that decides whether or not to use memory
registration?
+ * For RDMA READs we must use MRs on iWarp and can optionaly use them as an
+ * optimaztion otherwise. Additionally we have a debug option to force usage
+ * of MRs to help testing this code path.
You may want to change "optionaly" into "optionally" and "optimaztion"
into "optimization".
static inline bool rdma_rw_io_needs_mr(struct ib_device *dev, u8 port_num,
enum dma_data_direction dir, int dma_nents)
{
- if (rdma_protocol_iwarp(dev, port_num) && dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
- return true;
+ if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE) {
+ if (rdma_protocol_iwarp(dev, port_num))
+ return true;
+ if (dev->attrs.max_sgl_rd && dma_nents > dev->attrs.max_sgl_rd)
+ return true;
+ }
if (unlikely(rdma_rw_force_mr))
return true;
return false;
Should this function be renamed? The function name suggests if this
function returns 'true' that using memory registration is mandatory. My
understanding is if this function returns true for the mlx5 HCA that
using memory registration improves performance but is not mandatory.
Thanks,
Bart.
