netdev - RE: [for-next V2 10/10] RDMA/core: Provide RDMA DIM support for ULPs

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <AM5PR0501MB248327B260F97EF97CD5B80EC5E20@AM5PR0501MB2483.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 07:56:44 +0000
From:   Idan Burstein <idanb@...lanox.com>
To:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
CC:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Tal Gilboa <talgi@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yamin Friedman <yaminf@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [for-next V2 10/10] RDMA/core: Provide RDMA DIM support for ULPs

" Please don't. This is a bad choice to opt it in by default."

I disagree here. I'd prefer Linux to have good out of the box experience (e.g. reach 100G in 4K NVMeOF on Intel servers) with the default parameters. Especially since Yamin have shown it is beneficial / not hurting in terms of performance for variety of use cases. The whole concept of DIM is that it adapts to the workload requirements in terms of bandwidth and latency. 

Moreover, net-dim is enabled by default, I don't see why RDMA is different.


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-rdma-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-rdma-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Sagi Grimberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 12:14 AM
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>; David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>; Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>; Tal Gilboa <talgi@...lanox.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org; Yamin Friedman <yaminf@...lanox.com>; Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [for-next V2 10/10] RDMA/core: Provide RDMA DIM support for ULPs



> +static int ib_poll_dim_handler(struct irq_poll *iop, int budget) {
> +	struct ib_cq *cq = container_of(iop, struct ib_cq, iop);
> +	struct dim *dim = cq->dim;
> +	int completed;
> +
> +	completed = __ib_process_cq(cq, budget, cq->wc, IB_POLL_BATCH);
> +	if (completed < budget) {
> +		irq_poll_complete(&cq->iop);
> +		if (ib_req_notify_cq(cq, IB_POLL_FLAGS) > 0)
> +			irq_poll_sched(&cq->iop);
> +	}
> +
> +	rdma_dim(dim, completed);

Why duplicate the entire thing for a one-liner?

> +
> +	return completed;
> +}
> +
>   static void ib_cq_completion_softirq(struct ib_cq *cq, void *private)
>   {
>   	irq_poll_sched(&cq->iop);
> @@ -105,14 +157,18 @@ static void ib_cq_completion_softirq(struct 
> ib_cq *cq, void *private)
>   
>   static void ib_cq_poll_work(struct work_struct *work)
>   {
> -	struct ib_cq *cq = container_of(work, struct ib_cq, work);
> +	struct ib_cq *cq = container_of(work, struct ib_cq,
> +					work);

Why was that changed?

>   	int completed;
>   
>   	completed = __ib_process_cq(cq, IB_POLL_BUDGET_WORKQUEUE, cq->wc,
>   				    IB_POLL_BATCH);
> +

newline?

>   	if (completed >= IB_POLL_BUDGET_WORKQUEUE ||
>   	    ib_req_notify_cq(cq, IB_POLL_FLAGS) > 0)
>   		queue_work(cq->comp_wq, &cq->work);
> +	else if (cq->dim)
> +		rdma_dim(cq->dim, completed);
>   }
>   
>   static void ib_cq_completion_workqueue(struct ib_cq *cq, void 
> *private) @@ -166,6 +222,8 @@ struct ib_cq *__ib_alloc_cq_user(struct ib_device *dev, void *private,
>   	rdma_restrack_set_task(&cq->res, caller);
>   	rdma_restrack_kadd(&cq->res);
>   
> +	rdma_dim_init(cq);
> +
>   	switch (cq->poll_ctx) {
>   	case IB_POLL_DIRECT:
>   		cq->comp_handler = ib_cq_completion_direct; @@ -173,7 +231,13 @@ 
> struct ib_cq *__ib_alloc_cq_user(struct ib_device *dev, void *private,
>   	case IB_POLL_SOFTIRQ:
>   		cq->comp_handler = ib_cq_completion_softirq;
>   
> -		irq_poll_init(&cq->iop, IB_POLL_BUDGET_IRQ, ib_poll_handler);
> +		if (cq->dim) {
> +			irq_poll_init(&cq->iop, IB_POLL_BUDGET_IRQ,
> +				      ib_poll_dim_handler);
> +		} else
> +			irq_poll_init(&cq->iop, IB_POLL_BUDGET_IRQ,
> +				      ib_poll_handler);
> +
>   		ib_req_notify_cq(cq, IB_CQ_NEXT_COMP);
>   		break;
>   	case IB_POLL_WORKQUEUE:
> @@ -226,6 +290,9 @@ void ib_free_cq_user(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_udata *udata)
>   		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>   	}
>   
> +	if (cq->dim)
> +		cancel_work_sync(&cq->dim->work);
> +	kfree(cq->dim);
>   	kfree(cq->wc);
>   	rdma_restrack_del(&cq->res);
>   	ret = cq->device->ops.destroy_cq(cq, udata); diff --git 
> a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c 
> b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> index abac70ad5c7c..b1b45dbe24a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> @@ -6305,6 +6305,8 @@ static int mlx5_ib_stage_caps_init(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev)
>   	     MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev->mdev, disable_local_lb_mc)))
>   		mutex_init(&dev->lb.mutex);
>   
> +	dev->ib_dev.use_cq_dim = true;
> +

Please don't. This is a bad choice to opt it in by default.