From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/24] IB/mlx5: Support the new memory registration API Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:27:00 -0700 Message-ID: <5601C7A4.5030302@sandisk.com> References: <1442482947-27785-1-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <1442482947-27785-4-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1442482947-27785-4-git-send-email-sagig-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 09/17/2015 02:42 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > +static int > +mlx5_alloc_priv_descs(struct ib_device *device, > + struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr, > + int ndescs, > + int desc_size) > +{ > + int size = ndescs * desc_size; > + > + mr->descs = dma_alloc_coherent(device->dma_device, size, > + &mr->desc_map, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!mr->descs) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + return 0; > +} Would it be possible to clarify the choice for coherent memory ? Would performance be better if non-coherent memory would be used and if memory would be synced after initialization of desc_map has finished ? Bart. -- 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