lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 rdma-next] RDMA/mlx5: Enable Relaxed Ordering by default for kernel ULPs
From
Date

On 6/24/2021 9:38 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:06:46AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>> On 6/9/2021 2:05 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Avihai Horon <avihaih@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Relaxed Ordering is a capability that can only benefit users that support
>>> it. All kernel ULPs should support Relaxed Ordering, as they are designed
>>> to read data only after observing the CQE and use the DMA API correctly.
>>>
>>> Hence, implicitly enable Relaxed Ordering by default for kernel ULPs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Avihai Horon <avihaih@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changelog:
>>> v2:
>>> * Dropped IB/core patch and set RO implicitly in mlx5 exactly like in
>>> eth side of mlx5 driver.
>>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1621505111.git.leonro@nvidia.com
>>> * Enabled by default RO in IB/core instead of changing all users
>>> v0: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210405052404.213889-1-leon@kernel.org
>>> ---
>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 10 ++++++----
>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c | 5 ++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> index 3363cde85b14..2182e76ae734 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ static void set_mkc_access_pd_addr_fields(void *mkc, int acc, u64 start_addr,
>>> struct ib_pd *pd)
>>> {
>>> struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev = to_mdev(pd->device);
>>> + bool ro_pci_enabled = pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled(dev->mdev->pdev);
>>> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, a, !!(acc & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC));
>>> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, rw, !!(acc & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE));
>>> @@ -78,10 +79,10 @@ static void set_mkc_access_pd_addr_fields(void *mkc, int acc, u64 start_addr,
>>> if (MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev->mdev, relaxed_ordering_write))
>>> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, relaxed_ordering_write,
>>> - !!(acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING));
>>> + acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING && ro_pci_enabled);
>>> if (MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev->mdev, relaxed_ordering_read))
>>> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, relaxed_ordering_read,
>>> - !!(acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING));
>>> + acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING && ro_pci_enabled);
>> Jason,
>>
>> If it's still possible to add small change, it will be nice to avoid
>> calculating "acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING && ro_pci_enabled" twice.
> The patch is part of for-next now, so feel free to send followup patch.
>
> Thanks
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> index c1e70c99b70c..c4f246c90c4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ static void set_mkc_access_pd_addr_fields(void *mkc, int acc, u64 start_addr,
> struct ib_pd *pd)
> {
> struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev = to_mdev(pd->device);
> - bool ro_pci_enabled = pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled(dev->mdev->pdev);
> + bool ro_pci_enabled = acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING &&
> + pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled(dev->mdev->pdev);
>
> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, a, !!(acc & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC));
> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, rw, !!(acc & IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE));
> @@ -78,11 +79,9 @@ static void set_mkc_access_pd_addr_fields(void *mkc, int acc, u64 start_addr,
> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, lr, 1);
>
> if (MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev->mdev, relaxed_ordering_write))
> - MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, relaxed_ordering_write,
> - (acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING) && ro_pci_enabled);
> + MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, relaxed_ordering_write, ro_pci_enabled);
> if (MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev->mdev, relaxed_ordering_read))
> - MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, relaxed_ordering_read,
> - (acc & IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING) && ro_pci_enabled);
> + MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, relaxed_ordering_read, ro_pci_enabled);
>
> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, pd, to_mpd(pd)->pdn);
> MLX5_SET(mkc, mkc, qpn, 0xffffff);
> (END)
>
Yes this looks good.

Can you/Avihai create a patch from this ? or I'll do it ?


>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-24 09:40    [W:0.074 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site