From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
bfields@fieldses.org, trond.myklebust@primarydata.com
Cc: schumaker.anna@gmail.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:06:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65056db6-f30a-c44d-b01c-b549887c4895@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1487880034.3448.8.camel@redhat.com>
On 2/23/2017 3:00 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 14:42 -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
>> On 2/23/2017 12:03 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h | 1 +
>>> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 1 +
>>> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c | 2 ++
>>
>> There's a possibly-important detail here. Not all RDMA transports have
>> "IETF-approved congestion control", for example, RoCEv1. However, iWARP
>> and (arguably) RoCEv2 do. On the other hand, as a nonroutable protocol,
>> RoCEv1 may not fall under this restriction.
>>
>> Net-net, inspecting only the RDMA attribute of the transport may be
>> insufficient here.
>>
>> It could be argued however that the xprtrdma layer, with its rpcrdma
>> crediting, provides such congestion. But that needs to be made
>> explicit, and perhaps, discussed in IETF. Initially, I think it would
>> be important to flag this as a point for the future. For now, it may
>> be best to flag RoCEv1 as not supporting congestion.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>
> (cc'ing Chuck and the linux-rdma list)
>
> Thanks Tom, that's very interesting.
>
> Not being well versed in the xprtrdma layer, what condition should we
> use here to set the flag? git grep shows that the string "ROCEV1" only
> shows up in the bxnt_en driver. Is there some way to determine this
> generically for any given RDMA driver?
I would not code RoCEv1 as an exception, I would code iWARP and RoCEv2
as the only eligible ones. There are any number of other possibilities,
none of which should be automatically flagged as congestion-controlled.
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with hardcoding such a list into RPC.
But it may be the best you can do for now. Chuck, are you aware of a
verbs interface to obtain the RDMA transport type?
Tom.
>
>
>>> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h
>>> index 7440290f64ac..f8aa9452b63c 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h
>>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ struct svc_xprt {
>>> #define XPT_CACHE_AUTH 11 /* cache auth info */
>>> #define XPT_LOCAL 12 /* connection from loopback interface */
>>> #define XPT_KILL_TEMP 13 /* call xpo_kill_temp_xprt before closing */
>>> +#define XPT_CONG_CTRL 14 /* IETF approved congestion control protocol */
>>>
>>> struct svc_serv *xpt_server; /* service for transport */
>>> atomic_t xpt_reserved; /* space on outq that is rsvd */
>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>>> index de066acdb34e..1956b8b96b2d 100644
>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>>> @@ -1306,6 +1306,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_init(struct svc_sock *svsk, struct svc_serv *serv)
>>> svc_xprt_init(sock_net(svsk->sk_sock->sk), &svc_tcp_class,
>>> &svsk->sk_xprt, serv);
>>> set_bit(XPT_CACHE_AUTH, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>> + set_bit(XPT_CONG_CTRL, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>> if (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN) {
>>> dprintk("setting up TCP socket for listening\n");
>>> set_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c
>>> index 39652d390a9c..96b4797c2c54 100644
>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c
>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c
>>> @@ -571,6 +571,8 @@ static struct svcxprt_rdma *rdma_create_xprt(struct svc_serv *serv,
>>> spin_lock_init(&cma_xprt->sc_ctxt_lock);
>>> spin_lock_init(&cma_xprt->sc_map_lock);
>>>
>>> + set_bit(XPT_CONG_CTRL, &cma_xprt->sc_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>> +
>>> if (listener)
>>> set_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &cma_xprt->sc_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>>
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-23 17:03 [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 19:42 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:00 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:06 ` Tom Talpey [this message]
2017-02-23 20:11 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-23 20:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:33 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-24 15:08 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 17:17 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:32 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:17 ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 20:15 ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce congestion control protocol requirement for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:17 ` [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] sunrpc: flag transports as having both reliable and ordered delivery, and congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce transport requirements for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:38 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Chuck Lever
2017-02-24 18:53 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:23 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 18:53 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 21:22 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:25 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:34 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:44 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-27 11:59 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 12:08 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-27 12:55 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 14:20 ` J. Bruce Fields
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=65056db6-f30a-c44d-b01c-b549887c4895@talpey.com \
--to=tom@talpey.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schumaker.anna@gmail.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).