[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1167947371.3071.59.camel@stevo-desktop>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:49:31 -0600
From: Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, openib-general@...nib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> OK, I'm back from vacation today.
>
> Anyway I don't have a definitive statement on this right now. I guess
> I agree that I don't like having an extra parameter to a function that
> should be pretty fast (although req notify isn't quite as hot as
> something like posting a send request or polling a cq), given that it
> adds measurable overhead. (And I am surprised that the overhead is
> measurable, since 3 arguments still fit in registers, but OK).
>
> I also agree that adding an extra entry point just to pass in the user
> data is ugly, and also racy.
>
> Giving the kernel driver a pointer it can read seems OK I guess,
> although it's a little ugly to have a backdoor channel like that.
>
> I'm somewhat surprised the driver has to go into the kernel to rearm a
> CQ -- what makes the operation need kernel privileges? (Sorry for not
> reading the code)
> -
Rearming the CQ requires reading and writing to a global adapter
register that is shared and thus needs to be protected. They didn't
architect the rearm to be a direct user operation.
Steve.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists