Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:32:49 +0000
From:   Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
CC:     Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
        Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Adit Ranadive <aditr@...are.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        Avihai Horon <avihaih@...dia.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@...adcom.com>,
        Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
        Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Lijun Ou <oulijun@...wei.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        OFED mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
        "Md. Haris Iqbal" <haris.iqbal@...os.com>,
        Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...dia.com>,
        Michal Kalderon <mkalderon@...vell.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        Naresh Kumar PBS <nareshkumar.pbs@...adcom.com>,
        Linux-Net <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
        "rds-devel@....oracle.com" <rds-devel@....oracle.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
        Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@...adcom.com>,
        Sriharsha Basavapatna <sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        VMware PV-Drivers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Weihang Li <liweihang@...wei.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 00/10] Enable relaxed ordering for ULPs



> On 10 Apr 2021, at 15:30, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Tom Talpey
>> Sent: 09 April 2021 18:49
>> On 4/9/2021 12:27 PM, Haakon Bugge wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:32, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/9/2021 10:45 AM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2021, at 10:26 AM, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 4/6/2021 7:49 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:42:31PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We need to get a better idea what correctness testing has been done,
>>>>>>>> and whether positive correctness testing results can be replicated
>>>>>>>> on a variety of platforms.
>>>>>>> RO has been rolling out slowly on mlx5 over a few years and storage
>>>>>>> ULPs are the last to change. eg the mlx5 ethernet driver has had RO
>>>>>>> turned on for a long time, userspace HPC applications have been using
>>>>>>> it for a while now too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd love to see RO be used more, it was always something the RDMA
>>>>>> specs supported and carefully architected for. My only concern is
>>>>>> that it's difficult to get right, especially when the platforms
>>>>>> have been running strictly-ordered for so long. The ULPs need
>>>>>> testing, and a lot of it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We know there are platforms with broken RO implementations (like
>>>>>>> Haswell) but the kernel is supposed to globally turn off RO on all
>>>>>>> those cases. I'd be a bit surprised if we discover any more from this
>>>>>>> series.
>>>>>>> On the other hand there are platforms that get huge speed ups from
>>>>>>> turning this on, AMD is one example, there are a bunch in the ARM
>>>>>>> world too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My belief is that the biggest risk is from situations where completions
>>>>>> are batched, and therefore polling is used to detect them without
>>>>>> interrupts (which explicitly). The RO pipeline will completely reorder
>>>>>> DMA writes, and consumers which infer ordering from memory contents may
>>>>>> break. This can even apply within the provider code, which may attempt
>>>>>> to poll WR and CQ structures, and be tripped up.
>>>>> You are referring specifically to RPC/RDMA depending on Receive
>>>>> completions to guarantee that previous RDMA Writes have been
>>>>> retired? Or is there a particular implementation practice in
>>>>> the Linux RPC/RDMA code that worries you?
>>>> 
>>>> Nothing in the RPC/RDMA code, which is IMO correct. The worry, which
>>>> is hopefully unfounded, is that the RO pipeline might not have flushed
>>>> when a completion is posted *after* posting an interrupt.
>>>> 
>>>> Something like this...
>>>> 
>>>> RDMA Write arrives
>>>> 	PCIe RO Write for data
>>>> 	PCIe RO Write for data
>>>> 	...
>>>> RDMA Write arrives
>>>> 	PCIe RO Write for data
>>>> 	...
>>>> RDMA Send arrives
>>>> 	PCIe RO Write for receive data
>>>> 	PCIe RO Write for receive descriptor
>>> 
>>> Do you mean the Write of the CQE? It has to be Strongly Ordered for a correct implementation. Then
>> it will shure prior written RO date has global visibility when the CQE can be observed.
>> 
>> I wasn't aware that a strongly-ordered PCIe Write will ensure that
>> prior relaxed-ordered writes went first. If that's the case, I'm
>> fine with it - as long as the providers are correctly coded!!

The PCIe spec (Table Ordering Rules Summary) is quite clear here (A Posted request is Memory Write Request in this context):

	A Posted Request must not pass another Posted Request unless A2b applies.

	A2b: A Posted Request with RO Set is permitted to pass another Posted Request.


Thxs, Håkon

> 
> I remember trying to read the relevant section of the PCIe spec.
> (Possibly in a book that was trying to make it easier to understand!)
> It is about as clear as mud.
> 
> I presume this is all about allowing PCIe targets (eg ethernet cards)
> to use relaxed ordering on write requests to host memory.
> And that such writes can be completed out of order?
> 
> It isn't entirely clear that you aren't talking of letting the
> cpu do 'relaxed order' writes to PCIe targets!
> 
> For a typical ethernet driver the receive interrupt just means
> 'go and look at the receive descriptor ring'.
> So there is an absolute requirement that the writes for data
> buffer complete before the write to the receive descriptor.
> There is no requirement for the interrupt (requested after the
> descriptor write) to have been seen by the cpu.
> 
> Quite often the driver will find the 'receive complete'
> descriptor when processing frames from an earlier interrupt
> (and nothing to do in response to the interrupt itself).
> 
> So the write to the receive descriptor would have to have RO clear
> to ensure that all the buffer writes complete first.
> 
> (The furthest I've got into PCIe internals was fixing the bug
> in some vendor-supplied FPGA logic that failed to correctly
> handle multiple data TLP responses to a single read TLP.
> Fortunately it wasn't in the hard-IP bit.)
> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists