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: <352b1e15-3c6d-a398-3fe6-0f438e0e8406@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 09:33:57 +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 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.

> 
> Of course, these bug fix patches may need to ahead before the other PATCH,
> otherwise the probability of the problems they fixed may be amplified in
> an intermediate version.

True. Thanks for pointing that out.

Thank you
- Jan
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Best Wishes.
> D. Wythe