From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] svcrdma: Do not send XDR roundup bytes for a write chunk
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:14:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <566CE288.6000808@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151207204231.12988.59287.stgit@klimt.1015granger.net>
Two small comments.
On 12/7/2015 12:42 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Minor optimization: when dealing with write chunk XDR roundup, do
> not post a Write WR for the zero bytes in the pad. Simply update
> the write segment in the RPC-over-RDMA header to reflect the extra
> pad bytes.
>
> The Reply chunk is also a write chunk, but the server does not use
> send_write_chunks() to send the Reply chunk. That's OK in this case:
> the server Upper Layer typically marshals the Reply chunk contents
> in a single contiguous buffer, without a separate tail for the XDR
> pad.
>
> The comments and the variable naming refer to "chunks" but what is
> really meant is "segments." The existing code sends only one
> xdr_write_chunk per RPC reply.
>
> The fix assumes this as well. When the XDR pad in the first write
> chunk is reached, the assumption is the Write list is complete and
> send_write_chunks() returns.
>
> That will remain a valid assumption until the server Upper Layer can
> support multiple bulk payload results per RPC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c
> index 969a1ab..bad5eaa 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c
> @@ -342,6 +342,13 @@ static int send_write_chunks(struct svcxprt_rdma *xprt,
> arg_ch->rs_handle,
> arg_ch->rs_offset,
> write_len);
> +
> + /* Do not send XDR pad bytes */
It might be clearer to say "marshal" instead of "send".
> + if (chunk_no && write_len < 4) {
Why is it necessary to check for chunk_no == 0? It is not
possible for leading data to ever be padding, nor is a leading
data element ever less than 4 bytes long. Right?
Tom.
> + chunk_no++;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> chunk_off = 0;
> while (write_len) {
> ret = send_write(xprt, rqstp,
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tom Talpey <tom-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] svcrdma: Do not send XDR roundup bytes for a write chunk
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:14:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <566CE288.6000808@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151207204231.12988.59287.stgit-Hs+gFlyCn65vLzlybtyyYzGyq/o6K9yX@public.gmane.org>
Two small comments.
On 12/7/2015 12:42 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Minor optimization: when dealing with write chunk XDR roundup, do
> not post a Write WR for the zero bytes in the pad. Simply update
> the write segment in the RPC-over-RDMA header to reflect the extra
> pad bytes.
>
> The Reply chunk is also a write chunk, but the server does not use
> send_write_chunks() to send the Reply chunk. That's OK in this case:
> the server Upper Layer typically marshals the Reply chunk contents
> in a single contiguous buffer, without a separate tail for the XDR
> pad.
>
> The comments and the variable naming refer to "chunks" but what is
> really meant is "segments." The existing code sends only one
> xdr_write_chunk per RPC reply.
>
> The fix assumes this as well. When the XDR pad in the first write
> chunk is reached, the assumption is the Write list is complete and
> send_write_chunks() returns.
>
> That will remain a valid assumption until the server Upper Layer can
> support multiple bulk payload results per RPC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c
> index 969a1ab..bad5eaa 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c
> @@ -342,6 +342,13 @@ static int send_write_chunks(struct svcxprt_rdma *xprt,
> arg_ch->rs_handle,
> arg_ch->rs_offset,
> write_len);
> +
> + /* Do not send XDR pad bytes */
It might be clearer to say "marshal" instead of "send".
> + if (chunk_no && write_len < 4) {
Why is it necessary to check for chunk_no == 0? It is not
possible for leading data to ever be padding, nor is a leading
data element ever less than 4 bytes long. Right?
Tom.
> + chunk_no++;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> chunk_off = 0;
> while (write_len) {
> ret = send_write(xprt, rqstp,
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-13 3:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-07 20:42 [PATCH v3 0/6] NFS/RDMA server patches for 4.5 Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] svcrdma: Do not send XDR roundup bytes for a write chunk Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-13 3:14 ` Tom Talpey [this message]
2015-12-13 3:14 ` Tom Talpey
2015-12-13 19:44 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-13 19:44 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] svcrdma: Improve allocation of struct svc_rdma_op_ctxt Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] svcrdma: Define maximum number of backchannel requests Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] svcrdma: Add infrastructure to send backwards direction RPC/RDMA calls Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:42 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:43 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] svcrdma: Add infrastructure to receive backwards direction RPC/RDMA replies Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:43 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-13 3:24 ` Tom Talpey
2015-12-13 3:24 ` Tom Talpey
2015-12-13 20:27 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-13 20:27 ` Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:43 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] xprtrdma: Add class for RDMA backwards direction transport Chuck Lever
2015-12-07 20:43 ` Chuck Lever
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=566CE288.6000808@talpey.com \
--to=tom@talpey.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.