[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8d610a58-abb5-941a-2a52-96ab9287572b@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:22:30 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Yamin Friedman <yaminf@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v2 2/3] RDMA/rw: Support threshold for
registration vs scattering to local pages
On 10/7/19 9:03 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:07:55AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 10/7/19 6:59 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> /*
>>> - * Check if the device might use memory registration. This is currently only
>>> - * true for iWarp devices. In the future we can hopefully fine tune this based
>>> - * on HCA driver input.
>>> + * Check if the device might use memory registration. This is currently
>>> + * true for iWarp devices and devices that have optimized SGL registration
>>> + * logic.
>>> */
>>
>> The following sentence in the above comment looks confusing to me: "Check if
>> the device might use memory registration." That sentence suggests that the
>> HCA decides whether or not to use memory registration. Isn't it the RDMA R/W
>> code that decides whether or not to use memory registration?
>
> I'm open for any reasonable text, what do you expect to be written there?
Hi Leon,
How about the following (not sure whether this is correct)?
/*
* Report whether memory registration should be used. Memory
* registration must be used for iWarp devices because of
* iWARP-specific limitations. Memory registration is also enabled if
* registering memory will yield better performance than using multiple
* SGE entries.
*/
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists