From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dennis Dalessandro Subject: Re: [PATCH 37/37] IB/rdmavt: Add support for new memory registration API Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20151217155228.GA29455@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> References: <20151207204046.8144.18752.stgit@phlsvslse11.ph.intel.com> <20151207204540.8144.94303.stgit@phlsvslse11.ph.intel.com> <5669940D.4040402@dev.mellanox.co.il> <566EEBE8.8020007@dev.mellanox.co.il> <20151214171440.GC23833@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <5671653E.40501@dev.mellanox.co.il> <20151216142224.GA28117@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <56717733.7070105@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56717733.7070105-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Ira Weiny List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:37:39PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>This patch exists to provide parity for what is in qib. Should we not >>have it? If not, why do we have: >> >>commit 38071a461f0a ("IB/qib: Support the new memory registration API") > >That was done by me because I saw this in qib and assumed that it was >supported. Now that I found out that it isn't, I'd say it should be >removed altogether shouldn't it? I am not opposed to leaving the code in rdmavt. It gets removed from qib in the other patch series I posted. My preference is to leave it in rdmavt since it will be needed down the road. However I can go either way here, its easy to add back later. > >>>>That doesn't mean it can't be added to rdmavt as a future enhancement >>>>though if there is a need. >>> >>>Well, given that we're trying to consolidate on post send registration >>>interface it's kind of a must I'd say. >>> >>>>Are you asking because soft-roce will need it? >>> >>>I was asking in general, but in specific soft-roce as a consumer will >>>need to support that yes. >> >>I think it makes sense to revisit when soft-roce comes in, > >I agree. > >>since qib/hfi do not need IB_WR_LOCAL_INV. > >Can you explain? Does qib/hfi have a magic way to invalidate memory >regions? Hfi1 does not currently have any support for memory registration in its post send. Qib had the "old FRWR API" support in post_send, which you removed since according to the commit message, is not used anymore. I suppose a follow on patch to your "new memory registration API" patch would be needed to add the invalidate. This is the piece I think can be added later in rdmavt. -Denny -- 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