[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1402252338480.5180@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:40:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
cc: Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>, Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
Eli Cohen <eli@....mellanox.co.il>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4: Use GFP_NOFS calls during the ipoib TX path when
creating the QP
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> >> And what happens if you use IPoIB datagram mode, is/why the patch is
> >> needed there?
>
> > I admittedly am no infiniband expert, but my understanding is that in
> > principle Connected/Datagram mode is about MTU and checksum offloading,
>
> yes, the differences between the mode relate to these aspects, however
Thanks for confirming.
> > but the TX path is the same. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> no, note that your patch only touched drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> which is basically compiled out if you set CONFIG_INFINIBAND_IPOIB_CM,
> so surely the TX path for the datagram vs. connected modes are
> different.
Yes, but for datagram mode, the tx_ring is allocated in a completely
different way (not from kworker), so this might be a non-issue, right? I
will have to look into it more deeply to be really sure; if you can
provide your insight, that'd be helpful.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists