lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 1/6] net/smc: support smc release version negotiation in clc handshake
From


On 17/08/2023 05:18, Guangguan Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/8/16 22:14, Jan Karcher wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/08/2023 10:33, Guangguan Wang wrote:
>>> Support smc release version negotiation in clc handshake based on
>>> SMC v2, where no negotiation process for different releases, but
>>> for different versions. The latest smc release version was updated
>>> to v2.1. And currently there are two release versions of SMCv2, v2.0
>>> and v2.1. In the release version negotiation, client sends the preferred
>>> release version by CLC Proposal Message, server makes decision for which
>>> release version to use based on the client preferred release version and
>>> self-supported release version (here choose the minimum release version
>>> of the client preferred and server latest supported), then the decision
>>> returns to client by CLC Accept Message. Client confirms the decision by
>>> CLC Confirm Message.
>>>
>>> Client                                    Server
>>>        Proposal(preferred release version)
>>>       ------------------------------------>
>>>
>>>        Accept(accpeted release version)
>>>   min(client preferred, server latest supported)
>>>       <------------------------------------
>>>
>>>        Confirm(accpeted release version)
>>>       ------------------------------------>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>
>>> ---
>>>   net/smc/af_smc.c   | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>>>   net/smc/smc.h      |  5 ++++-
>>>   net/smc/smc_clc.c  | 14 +++++++-------
>>>   net/smc/smc_clc.h  | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>   net/smc/smc_core.h |  1 +
>>>   5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>>> index a7f887d91d89..97265691bc95 100644
>>> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
>>> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>>> @@ -1187,6 +1187,9 @@ static int smc_connect_rdma_v2_prepare(struct smc_sock *smc,
>>>               return SMC_CLC_DECL_NOINDIRECT;
>>>           }
>>>       }
>>> +
>>> +    ini->release_nr = fce->release;
>>> +
>>
>> why would we do this and vvvvv
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   @@ -1355,6 +1358,13 @@ static int smc_connect_ism(struct smc_sock *smc,
>>>           struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *aclc_v2 =
>>>               (struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *)aclc;
>>>   +        if (ini->first_contact_peer) {
>>> +            struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext *fce =
>>> +                smc_get_clc_first_contact_ext(aclc_v2, true);
>>> +
>>> +            ini->release_nr = fce->release;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>
>> this two times?
>> Can't we put this together into __smc_connect where those functions get called (via smc_connect_rdma and smc_connect_ism)?
>>
>> Please provide reasoning, it might be that i oversaw the reasoning behind this duplication.
>>
> ini->release_nr is assigned only when doing first connect, thus this depends on the value test of
> ini->first_contact_peer. I have to follow the ini->first_contact_peer code logic, which may also
> make us wonder that why not put ini->first_contact_peer together into __smc_connect.
>
> Indeed, both of ini->first_contact_peer and ini->release_nr can put together into __smc_connect.
> But I think it is better to start a new patch series to refactor those code, not in v2.1 features.

True. It would only be clean if move both. Works for me.

>
>
>> Also note: Even if there is a reason to set this information seperate for SMC-D and SMC-R think about using your very neat helper function (smc_get_clc_first_contact_ext) in smc_connect_rdma_v2_prepare as well.
>>
>
> OK, I will replace the code to smc_get_clc_first_contact_ext.
>
> Thanks,
> Guangguan Wang
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-17 08:43    [W:0.034 / U:0.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site