On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 05:56:17PM -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote: > On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 17:01 -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 22:40 +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 3/15/2020 8:36 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 20:20 +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > On 3/15/2020 7:59 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 18:47 +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/14/2020 11:30 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Bart, Leon and Max > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Laurence, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the great analysis and the fast response !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Max had reached out to me to test a new set of patches > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > SRQ. > > > > > > > > I had not tested upstream ib_srpt on an LIO target for > > > > > > > > quite a > > > > > > > > while, > > > > > > > > only ib_srp client tests had been run of late. > > > > > > > > During a baseline test before applying Max's patches it > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > apparent > > > > > > > > that something had broken ib_srpt connections within LIO > > > > > > > > target > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > 5.5. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note thet ib_srp client connectivity with the commit > > > > > > > > functions > > > > > > > > fine, > > > > > > > > it's just the target that breaks with this commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After a long bisect this is the commit that seems to > > > > > > > > break > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > While it's not directly code in ib_srpt, its code in mlx5 > > > > > > > > vport > > > > > > > > ethernet connectivity that then breaks ib_srpt > > > > > > > > connectivity > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > mlx5 > > > > > > > > IB RDMA with LIO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able to connect in loopback and also from remote > > > > > > > initiator > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > this commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm not sure that this commit is broken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I used Bart's scripts to configure the target and to > > > > > > > connect > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > loopback (after some modifications for the updated > > > > > > > kernel/sysfs/configfs > > > > > > > interface). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did see an issue to connect from remote initiator, but > > > > > > > after > > > > > > > reloading > > > > > > > openibd in the initiator side I was able to connect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I suspect you had the same issue - that also should be > > > > > > > debugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will let Leon and others decide but reverting the below > > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > allows > > > > > > > > SRP connectivity to an LIO target to work again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I added prints to "mlx5_core_modify_hca_vport_context" > > > > > > > function > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > found that we don't call it in "pure" mlx5 mode with PFs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you can try it too... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able to check my patches on my system and I'll send > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again Laurence and Bart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Max, I will test your new patches once we have a decision > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Client > > > > > > > > Linux ibclient.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com 5.6.0-rc5+ #1 SMP > > > > > > > > Thu > > > > > > > > Mar > > > > > > > > 12 > > > > > > > > 16:58:19 EDT 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server with reverted commit > > > > > > > > Linux fedstorage.bos.redhat.com 5.6.0-rc5+ #1 SMP Sat Mar > > > > > > > > 14 > > > > > > > > 16:39:35 > > > > > > > > EDT 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit ab118da4c10a70b8437f5c90ab77adae1835963e > > > > > > > > Author: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Date: Wed Nov 13 12:03:47 2019 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > net/mlx5: Don't write read-only fields in > > > > > > > > MODIFY_HCA_VPORT_CONTEXT > > > > > > > > command > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MODIFY_HCA_VPORT_CONTEXT uses field_selector > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > mask > > > > > > > > fields > > > > > > > > needed > > > > > > > > to be written, other fields are required to be > > > > > > > > zero > > > > > > > > according > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > HW specification. The supported fields are > > > > > > > > controlled by > > > > > > > > bitfield > > > > > > > > and limited to vport state, node and port GUIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky < > > > > > > > > leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > > a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c > > > > > > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5 > > > > > > > > index 30f7848..1faac31f 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c > > > > > > > > @@ -1064,26 +1064,13 @@ int > > > > > > > > mlx5_core_modify_hca_vport_context(struct > > > > > > > > mlx5_core_dev *dev, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ctx = > > > > > > > > MLX5_ADDR_OF(modify_hca_vport_context_in, > > > > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > hca_vport_context); > > > > > > > > MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, field_select, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > field_select); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, sm_virt_aware, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > sm_virt_aware); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, has_smi, req- > > > > > > > > > has_smi); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, has_raw, req- > > > > > > > > > has_raw); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > vport_state_policy, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > policy); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > port_physical_state, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > phys_state); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, vport_state, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > vport_state); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET64(hca_vport_context, ctx, port_guid, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > port_guid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET64(hca_vport_context, ctx, node_guid, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > node_guid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, cap_mask1, req- > > > > > > > > > cap_mask1); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > cap_mask1_field_select, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > cap_mask1_perm); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, cap_mask2, req- > > > > > > > > > cap_mask2); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > cap_mask2_field_select, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > cap_mask2_perm); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, lid, req->lid); > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, init_type_reply, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > init_type_reply); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, lmc, req->lmc); > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, subnet_timeout, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > subnet_timeout); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, sm_lid, req- > > > > > > > > > sm_lid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, sm_sl, req- > > > > > > > > > sm_sl); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > qkey_violation_counter, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > qkey_violation_counter); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > pkey_violation_counter, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > pkey_violation_counter); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (req->field_select & > > > > > > > > MLX5_HCA_VPORT_SEL_STATE_POLICY) > > > > > > > > + MLX5_SET(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > vport_state_policy, > > > > > > > > + req->policy); > > > > > > > > + if (req->field_select & > > > > > > > > MLX5_HCA_VPORT_SEL_PORT_GUID) > > > > > > > > + MLX5_SET64(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > port_guid, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > port_guid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (req->field_select & > > > > > > > > MLX5_HCA_VPORT_SEL_NODE_GUID) > > > > > > > > + MLX5_SET64(hca_vport_context, ctx, > > > > > > > > node_guid, > > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > > node_guid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > err = mlx5_cmd_exec(dev, in, in_sz, out, > > > > > > > > sizeof(out)); > > > > > > > > ex: > > > > > > > > kfree(in); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Max > > > > > > Re: > > > > > > > > > > > > " > > > > > > So I'm not sure that this commit is broken. > > > > > > .. > > > > > > .. > > > > > > I added prints to "mlx5_core_modify_hca_vport_context" > > > > > > function > > > > > > and > > > > > > found that we don't call it in "pure" mlx5 mode with PFs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you can try it too... > > > > > > " > > > > > > > > > > > > The thing is without this commit we connect immediately, no > > > > > > delay > > > > > > no > > > > > > issue and I am changing nothing else other than reverting > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > So this clearly has a bearing directly on the functionality. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will look at adding more debug, but with this commit in > > > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > nor > > > > > > evidence even of an attempt to connect and fail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Its silently faling. > > > > > > > > > > please send me all the configuration steps you run after > > > > > booting > > > > > the > > > > > target + steps in the initiator (can be also in attached file). > > > > > > > > > > I'll try to follow this. > > > > > > > > > > Btw, did you try loopback initiator ? > > > > > > > > > > -Max. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Laurence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Max > > > > > > > > Did not try loopback because here we have actual physical > > > > connectity as > > > > that is what our customers use. > > > > > > > > Connected back to back with MLX5 cx4 HCA dual ports at EDR 100 > > > > Thi sis my standard configuration used for all upstream and Red > > > > Hat > > > > kernel testing. > > > > > > > > Reboot server and client and then first prepare server > > > > > > > > Server > > > > ---------- > > > > > > > > the prepare.sh script run is after boot on the server > > > > > > > > > > > > #!/bin/bash > > > > ./load_modules.sh > > > > ./create_ramdisk.sh > > > > targetcli restoreconfig > > > > # Set the srp_sq_size > > > > for i in > > > > /sys/kernel/config/target/srpt/0xfe800000000000007cfe900300726e4e > > > > /sys/kernel/config/target/srpt/0xfe800000000000007cfe900300726e4f > > > > do > > > > echo 16384 > $i/tpgt_1/attrib/srp_sq_size > > > > done > > > > > > > > [root@fedstorage ~]# cat load_modules.sh > > > > #!/bin/bash > > > > modprobe mlx5_ib > > > > modprobe ib_srpt > > > > modprobe ib_srp > > > > modprobe ib_umad > > > > > > > > [root@fedstorage ~]# cat ./create_ramdisk.sh > > > > #!/bin/bash > > > > mount -t tmpfs -o size=130g tmpfs /mnt > > > > cd /mnt > > > > for i in `seq 1 30`; do dd if=/dev/zero of=block-$i bs=1024k > > > > count=4000 > > > > ; done > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Client > > > > -------- > > > > > > > > Once server is ready > > > > > > > > Run ./start_opensm.sh on client (I sont use the SM on a switch as > > > > we > > > > are back to back) > > > > > > > > [root@ibclient ~]# cat ./start_opensm.sh > > > > #!/bin/bash > > > > rmmod ib_srpt > > > > opensm -F opensm.1.conf & > > > > opensm -F opensm.2.conf & > > > > > > > > I will semail the conf only to you as well as the targecli config > > > > as th > > > > eout is long. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then run start_srp.sh > > > > > > > > [root@ibclient ~]# cat ./start_srp.sh > > > > run_srp_daemon -V -f /etc/ddn/srp_daemon.conf -R 30 -T 10 -t > > > > 7000 > > > > -ance -i mlx5_0 -p 1 1>/root/srp1.log 2>&1 & > > > > run_srp_daemon -V -f /etc/ddn/srp_daemon.conf -R 30 -T 10 -t > > > > 7000 > > > > -ance -i mlx5_1 -p 1 1>/root/srp2.log 2>&1 & > > > > > > > > [root@ibclient ~]# cat /etc/ddn/srp_daemon.conf > > > > a queue_size=128,max_cmd_per_lun=32,max_sect=32768 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see that you're link is IB. > > > > > > I was working on RoCE link layer with rdma_cm. > > > > > > I'll try to find some free IB setup tomorrow in my lab.. > > > > > > Can you try login using rdma_cm ? need to load ib_ipoib for that in > > > IB > > > network. > > > > > > I'm trying to understand whether it's related to the link layer. > > > > > > p.s. I think the target configuration file didn't arrive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Max, > > > > Yes, I am, working primarily with SCSI over RDMA Protocol with > > Infiniband HCA's in IB mode. > > I am not using ROCE. > > > > Also lets not forget this is a target only issue, the latest 5.6 > > kernel > > runs untouched with no issues on the initiator when the target runs > > either 5.4 or 5.6 with the revert. > > It would run fine with the target on 5.5 as well if I reverted the > > commit on 5.5 too. > > > > I am not able at this time to switch these adapters to Ethernet mode > > and ROCE > > > > The weird thing is the failure is completely silent so something in > > the > > Link layer with IB has to failing early. > > Thje other strange observation is that the IB interfaces come up with > > no issue. > > I will try add some debug after reboot into the failing kernel. > > > > Regards > > Laurence > > > > > > > > Max, > Rupesh in cc here will be testing latest upstream on a client/server > configuration with ROCE and report back here on if he sees a similar > issue with the LIO target with that commit. > > I will continue working on the IB srpt issue by adding some debug. > > If you think about anything related to the commit let me know. Laurence, As I said above, the most chances are that I removed some RW initialization that wasn't protected by field_select and wasn't marked in our PRM as RW field. The question is which one. Thanks > > Regards > Laurence >
