[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bde43e4f-3fbb-9814-632c-db62ba96adea@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 09:13:42 -0700
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [net-next][PATCH v2 2/2] rds: add sysctl for rds support of
On-Demand-Paging
On 5/10/2019 6:02 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 04:37:20PM -0700, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> RDS doesn't support RDMA on memory apertures that require On Demand
>> Paging (ODP), such as FS DAX memory. A sysctl is added to indicate
>> whether RDMA requiring ODP is supported.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: HÃ¥kon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
>> Reviewed-tested-by: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@...cle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans Westgaard Ry <hans.westgaard.ry@...cle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
>> net/rds/ib.h | 1 +
>> net/rds/ib_sysctl.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/rds/ib.h b/net/rds/ib.h
>> index 67a715b..80e11ef 100644
>> +++ b/net/rds/ib.h
>> @@ -457,5 +457,6 @@ unsigned int rds_ib_stats_info_copy(struct rds_info_iterator *iter,
>> extern unsigned long rds_ib_sysctl_max_unsig_bytes;
>> extern unsigned long rds_ib_sysctl_max_recv_allocation;
>> extern unsigned int rds_ib_sysctl_flow_control;
>> +extern unsigned int rds_ib_sysctl_odp_support;
>>
>> #endif
>> diff --git a/net/rds/ib_sysctl.c b/net/rds/ib_sysctl.c
>> index e4e41b3..7cc02cd 100644
>> +++ b/net/rds/ib_sysctl.c
>> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@
>> * will cause credits to be added before protocol negotiation.
>> */
>> unsigned int rds_ib_sysctl_flow_control = 0;
>> +unsigned int rds_ib_sysctl_odp_support;
>>
>> static struct ctl_table rds_ib_sysctl_table[] = {
>> {
>> @@ -103,6 +104,13 @@
>> .mode = 0644,
>> .proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
>> },
>> + {
>> + .procname = "odp_support",
>> + .data = &rds_ib_sysctl_odp_support,
>> + .maxlen = sizeof(rds_ib_sysctl_odp_support),
>> + .mode = 0444,
>> + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
>> + },
>> { }
>> };
>
> using a read-only sysctl as a capability negotiation scheme seems
> horrible to me
>
Do you have a suggestion ? Was thinking of adding a socketopt but
didn't pursue it further.
Regards,
Santosh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists