From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:41:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvme-rdma: don't complete requests before a send work request has completed In-Reply-To: <384d8a51-aa2f-5954-c9fd-a0c88d7e5364@grimberg.me> References: <20171108100616.26605-1-sagi@grimberg.me> <20171108100616.26605-3-sagi@grimberg.me> <20171109092110.GB16966@lst.de> <0f368bc9-2e9f-4008-316c-46b85661a274@grimberg.me> <20171120083130.GC27552@lst.de> <384d8a51-aa2f-5954-c9fd-a0c88d7e5364@grimberg.me> Message-ID: <20171120084102.GA28456@lst.de> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017@10:37:54AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >> Both send and recv completed only ever go from not set to set on a live >> requests, so that's easy. need_inval only goes from set to cleared >> so I'm not too worried about it either, but due to the lack of atomic >> bitops there it will need better memory barries, or just a switch >> to bitops.. >> >> But looking at this in a little more detail I wonder if we just want >> a recount on the nvme_rdma_request, untested patch below. > > I'll give it a shot. Btw, in our brave new world that should probably be a refcnt_t instead of an atomic_t, but that's a trivial search and replace. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvme-rdma: don't complete requests before a send work request has completed Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:41:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20171120084102.GA28456@lst.de> References: <20171108100616.26605-1-sagi@grimberg.me> <20171108100616.26605-3-sagi@grimberg.me> <20171109092110.GB16966@lst.de> <0f368bc9-2e9f-4008-316c-46b85661a274@grimberg.me> <20171120083130.GC27552@lst.de> <384d8a51-aa2f-5954-c9fd-a0c88d7e5364@grimberg.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <384d8a51-aa2f-5954-c9fd-a0c88d7e5364-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nvme-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Max Gurtuvoy List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:37:54AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >> Both send and recv completed only ever go from not set to set on a live >> requests, so that's easy. need_inval only goes from set to cleared >> so I'm not too worried about it either, but due to the lack of atomic >> bitops there it will need better memory barries, or just a switch >> to bitops.. >> >> But looking at this in a little more detail I wonder if we just want >> a recount on the nvme_rdma_request, untested patch below. > > I'll give it a shot. Btw, in our brave new world that should probably be a refcnt_t instead of an atomic_t, but that's a trivial search and replace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html