lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:05:34 -0400
From:   Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Adit Ranadive <aditr@...are.com>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
        Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Kalderon <mkalderon@...vell.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
        Naresh Kumar PBS <nareshkumar.pbs@...adcom.com>,
        Nelson Escobar <neescoba@...co.com>,
        Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
        Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        Steve Wise <larrystevenwise@...il.com>,
        VMware PV-Drivers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Weihang Li <liweihang@...wei.com>,
        Wenpeng Liang <liangwenpeng@...wei.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 8/9] RDMA: Globally allocate and release QP
 memory

On 7/20/21 4:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 04:42:11PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 18/07/2021 15:00, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> Convert QP object to follow IB/core general allocation scheme.
>>> That change allows us to make sure that restrack properly kref
>>> the memory.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>>
>> EFA and core parts look good to me.
>> Reviewed-by: Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>
>> Tested-by: Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>

Leon, I pulled your tree and tested, things look good so far.

For rdmavt and core:
Reviewed-by: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>
Tested-by: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>


> Thanks a lot.
> 
>>
>>> +static inline void *rdma_zalloc_obj(struct ib_device *dev, size_t size,
>>> +				    gfp_t gfp, bool is_numa_aware)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (is_numa_aware && dev->ops.get_numa_node)
>>
>> Honestly I think it's better to return an error if a numa aware allocation is
>> requested and get_numa_node is not provided.
> 
> We don't want any driver to use and implement ".get_numa_node()" callback.
> 
> Initially, I thought about adding WARN_ON(driver_id != HFI && .get_numa_node)
> to the device.c, but decided to stay with comment in ib_verbs.h only.

Maybe you could update that comment and add that it's for performance? This way
its clear we are different for a reason. I'd be fine adding a WARN_ON_ONCE like
you mention here. I don't think we need to fail the call but drawing attention
to it would not necessarily be a bad thing. Either way, RB/TB for me stands.

-Denny


Powered by blists - more mailing lists