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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 14:30:55 +0100 From: Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com> To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections On 24/11/2022 09:53, D. Wythe wrote: > > > On 11/24/22 4:33 PM, Jan Karcher wrote: >> >> >> On 24/11/2022 06:55, D. Wythe wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/23/22 11:54 PM, D.Wythe wrote: >>>> From: "D.Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com> >>>> >>>> This patch set attempts to optimize the parallelism of SMC-R >>>> connections, >>>> mainly to reduce unnecessary blocking on locks, and to fix >>>> exceptions that >>>> occur after thoses optimization. >>>> >>> >>>> D. Wythe (10): >>>> net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected >>>> smc_llc_srv_add_link() >>>> net/smc: fix application data exception >>>> net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without smc_server_lgr_pending >>>> net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and >>>> smc_server_lgr_pending >>>> net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex >>>> net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently >>>> net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore >>>> net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in >>>> smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse() >>>> net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs() >>>> net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore >>>> >>>> net/smc/af_smc.c | 74 ++++---- >>>> net/smc/smc_core.c | 541 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>> net/smc/smc_core.h | 53 +++++- >>>> net/smc/smc_llc.c | 285 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- >>>> net/smc/smc_llc.h | 6 + >>>> net/smc/smc_wr.c | 10 - >>>> net/smc/smc_wr.h | 10 + >>>> 7 files changed, 801 insertions(+), 178 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Hi Jan and Wenjia, >>> >>> I'm wondering whether the bug fix patches need to be put together in >>> this series. I'm considering >>> sending these bug fix patches separately now, which may be better, in >>> case that our patch >>> might have other problems. These bug fix patches are mainly >>> independent, even without my other >>> patches, they may be triggered theoretically. >> >> Hi D. >> >> Wenjia and i just talked about that. For us it would be better >> separating the fixes and the new logic. >> If the fixes are independent feel free to post them to net. > > > Got it, I will remove those bug fix patches in the next series and send > them separately. > And thanks a lot for your test, no matter what the final test results > are, I will send a new series > to separate them after your test finished. Hi D., I have some troubles applying your patches. error: sha1 information is lacking or useless (net/smc/smc_core.c). error: could not build fake ancestor Patch failed at 0001 optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections Before merging them by hand could you please send the v6 with the fixes separated and verify that you are basing on the latest net / net-next tree? That would make it easier for us to test them. Thank you - Jan > > Thanks > D. Wythe > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists