lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH RFC] rds: ib: Reduce the contention caused by the asynchronous workers to flush the mr pool
Date


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgg@ziepe.ca]
Sent: 19 January 2022 06:35 PM
To: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@oracle.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>; Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>; David S . Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; kuba@kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; rds-devel@oss.oracle.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@oracle.com>; Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rds: ib: Reduce the contention caused by the asynchronous workers to flush the mr pool

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:46:16AM +0000, Praveen Kannoju wrote:

> 6. Jason, the only function "rds_ib_free_mr" which accesses the
> introduced bool variable "flush_ongoing" to spawn a flush worker does
> not crucially impact the availability of MR's, because the flush
> happens from allocation path as well when necessary. Hence the
> Load-store ordering is not essentially needed here, because of which
> we chose smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() over smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release().

That seems like a confusing statement, you added barriers which do the same things as acquire/release then say you didn't need acquire release?

I think this is using barriers wrong.

Jason

Jason,

Yes, we are using the barriers. I was justifying the usage of smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() over smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() in the patch.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-19 14:13    [W:0.196 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site