[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220119130450.GJ8034@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:04:50 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"rds-devel@....oracle.com" <rds-devel@....oracle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>,
Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom
<rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rds: ib: Reduce the contention caused by the
asynchronous workers to flush the mr pool
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:46:16AM +0000, Praveen Kannoju wrote:
> 6. Jason, the only function "rds_ib_free_mr" which accesses the
> introduced bool variable "flush_ongoing" to spawn a flush worker
> does not crucially impact the availability of MR's, because the
> flush happens from allocation path as well when necessary. Hence
> the Load-store ordering is not essentially needed here, because of
> which we chose smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() over smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release().
That seems like a confusing statement, you added barriers which do the
same things as acquire/release then say you didn't need acquire
release?
I think this is using barriers wrong.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists