[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR10MB551565CBAD2FF5CC0D3C69C48C599@PH0PR10MB5515.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:12:29 +0000
From: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgg@...pe.ca]
Sent: 19 January 2022 06:35 PM
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; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org; rds-devel@....oracle.com; 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
Jason,
Yes, we are using the barriers. I was justifying the usage of smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() over smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() in the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists