From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail.tpi.com ([70.99.223.143]:3787 "EHLO mail.tpi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754371Ab3CKSvy (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:51:54 -0400 Message-ID: <513E27C0.8050108@canonical.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:51:44 -0600 From: Tim Gardner MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust , "David S. Miller" , Tom Tucker , Haggai Eran , Or Gerlitz , Shani Michaeli , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] SUNRPC: rpcrdma_register_default_external: Dynamically allocate ib_phys_buf References: <20130310202838.GL31448@fieldses.org> <1363023447-22453-1-git-send-email-tim.gardner@canonical.com> <20130311181450.GC30618@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20130311181450.GC30618@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/11/2013 12:14 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >> v2 - Move the array of 'struct ib_phys_buf' objects into struct rpcrdma_req >> and pass this request down through rpcrdma_register_external() and >> rpcrdma_register_default_external(). This is less overhead then using >> kmalloc() and requires no extra error checking as the allocation burden is >> shifted to the transport client. > > Oh good--so that works, and the req is the right place to put this? How > are you testing this? > > (Just want to make it clear: I'm *not* an expert on the rdma code, so my > suggestion to put this in the rpcrdma_req was a suggestion for something > to look into, not a claim that it's correct.) > Just compile tested so far. Incidentally, I've been through the call stack: call_transmit xprt_transmit xprt->ops->send_request(task) xprt_rdma_send_request rpcrdma_marshal_req rpcrdma_create_chunks rpcrdma_register_external rpcrdma_register_default_external It appears that the context for kmalloc() should be fine unless there is a spinlock held around call_transmit() (which seems unlikely). rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Gardner Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] SUNRPC: rpcrdma_register_default_external: Dynamically allocate ib_phys_buf Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:51:44 -0600 Message-ID: <513E27C0.8050108@canonical.com> References: <20130310202838.GL31448@fieldses.org> <1363023447-22453-1-git-send-email-tim.gardner@canonical.com> <20130311181450.GC30618@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Trond Myklebust , "David S. Miller" , Tom Tucker , Haggai Eran , Or Gerlitz , Shani Michaeli , linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130311181450.GC30618-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 03/11/2013 12:14 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >> v2 - Move the array of 'struct ib_phys_buf' objects into struct rpcrdma_req >> and pass this request down through rpcrdma_register_external() and >> rpcrdma_register_default_external(). This is less overhead then using >> kmalloc() and requires no extra error checking as the allocation burden is >> shifted to the transport client. > > Oh good--so that works, and the req is the right place to put this? How > are you testing this? > > (Just want to make it clear: I'm *not* an expert on the rdma code, so my > suggestion to put this in the rpcrdma_req was a suggestion for something > to look into, not a claim that it's correct.) > Just compile tested so far. Incidentally, I've been through the call stack: call_transmit xprt_transmit xprt->ops->send_request(task) xprt_rdma_send_request rpcrdma_marshal_req rpcrdma_create_chunks rpcrdma_register_external rpcrdma_register_default_external It appears that the context for kmalloc() should be fine unless there is a spinlock held around call_transmit() (which seems unlikely). rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner-Z7WLFzj8eWMS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html