Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Apr 2013 19:07:48 +0300 | From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2] rdma: add a new IB_ACCESS_GIFT flag |
| |
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 08:05:21PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:57:38AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> At the moment registering an MR breaks COW. This breaks memory > > >> overcommit for users such as KVM: we have a lot of COW pages, e.g. > > >> instances of the zero page or pages shared using KSM. > > >> > > >> If the application does not care that adapter sees stale data (for > > >> example, it tracks writes reregisters and resends), it can use a new > > >> IBV_ACCESS_GIFT flag to prevent registration from breaking COW. > > >> > > >> The semantics are similar to that of SPLICE_F_GIFT thus the name. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > > > > Roland, Michael is yet to test this but could you please > > > confirm whether this looks acceptable to you? > > > > The patch itself is reasonable I guess, given the needs of this particular app. > > > > I'm not particularly happy with the name of the flag. The analogy > > with SPLICE_F_GIFT doesn't seem particularly strong and I'm not > > convinced even the splice flag name is very understandable. But in > > the RDMA case there's not really any sense in which we're "gifting" > > memory to the adapter -- we're just telling the library "please don't > > trigger copy-on-write" and it doesn't seem particularly easy for users > > to understand that from the flag name. > > > > - R. > > The point really is that any writes by application > won't be seen until re-registration, right? > OK, what's a better name? IBV_ACCESS_NON_COHERENT? > Please tell me what is preferable and we'll go ahead with it.
Um. ping? We are at -rc5 and things need to fall into place if we are to have it in 3.10 ...
> -- > MST
| |