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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:54:51 +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 20:53, D. Wythe wrote:
> 
> 
> 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？

Hi D.,

sorry for the delayed reply:
I just re-tried it with path instead of git am and i think i messed it 
up yesterday.
Mea culpa. With patch your changes *can* be applied to the latest net-next.
I'm very sorry for the inconvenience. Could you still please send the 
v6. That way i can verify the fixes separate and we can - if the tests 
succeed - already apply them.

Sorry and thank you
- Jan

> 
> Thanks.
> D. Wythe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>