netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections

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: <4f6d8e70-b3f2-93cd-ae83-77ee733cf716@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2022 03:53:36 +0800
From:   "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.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 11/24/22 9:30 PM, Jan Karcher wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> 

Hi Jan,

It's quite weird, it seems that my patch did based on the latest net-next tree.
And I try apply it the latest net tree, it's seems work to me too. Maybe there
is something wrong with the mirror I use. Can you show me the conflict described
in the .rej file？

Thanks.
D. Wythe