Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] RDMA/rxe: Increase value of RXE_MAX_AH

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:13:57AM -0500, Bob Pearson wrote:
> On 6/24/21 4:21 PM, Shoaib Rao wrote:
> > 
> > On 6/18/21 4:25 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 01:58:48PM -0500, Bob Pearson wrote:
> >>> On 6/18/21 11:33 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:56:58PM -0500, Bob Pearson wrote:
> >>>>  
> >>>>> It isn't my call. But I am in favor of tunable parameters. -- Bob Pearson
> >>>> Can we just delete the concept completely?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>> Not sure where you are headed here. Do you mean just lift the limits
> >>> all together?
> >> Yes.. The spec doesn't have like a UCONTEXT limit for instance, and
> >> real HW like mlx5 has huge reported limits anyhow.
> > 
> > These limits are reported via uverbs, so what do we report without current applications. Creating pool also requires limits but I guess we can use something like -1 to indicate there is no limit. I would have to look at all the values to see if we can implement this.
> > 
> > Shoaib
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> Jason
>
> The object create in pools (rxe_alloc_locked) just calls kzalloc for
> objects allocated by rxe and checks the limits. For objects
> allocated by rdma-core (__rxe_add_to_pool) it just checks the
> limits. The only place where the limit really matters is when a pool
> is indexed (RXE_POOL_INDEXED). Then there is a bitmask used to
> allocate the indices for the objects which consumes one byte for
> each 8 objects.

Use an ida or xarray instead?

Jason