From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC684C433FE for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229659AbiKYGzF (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 01:55:05 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56534 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229476AbiKYGzF (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 01:55:05 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29D612B60F; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 22:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 2AP6UMQc038350; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:55:01 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=ciVnNQJMq+vfSxaPWLiqzNSxx0S9DYjGEhmBi6qK9ak=; b=hgNUwVHNdroQchgg9upUB+Y3wYdztFMxyhR6LMBhVBBTJUydchWI5j5Xaqu8jhnx4yvz 34tBAw4n7mUOonZziKDumtiNUyLEPRS0RFMNn+gLTgRmg70J/LrIMjhGHtQLFUer07pn FjPtiCegvrzcW/mL954fPh20nqTbjNZ/JdmFrMUujze+kv6w7D1NmpS269ng9Q2U/qrS 2Pbaw3n6B0JXn20f9p0irr4WaJpKFEcjbR0afTIpjQu0F1yCYVPGB6nD0PmFuMAuGJH6 M1QP2i9CuNaGWZRfMVePko+gRujgpRV1JxOroaWyMevTBy/aFCRahWDqefzQZ1jzBvsO eQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3m2rg40enb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:55:00 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 2AP6Vo1G000613; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:55:00 GMT Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3m2rg40emk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:59 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2AP6pZcG017489; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:57 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kxps96mk2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:57 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2AP6ssw89634324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:54 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAE911C050; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D1511C04A; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.179.19.184] (unknown [9.179.19.184]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:54:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <22f468cb-106b-1797-0496-e9108773ab9d@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:54:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections To: "D. Wythe" , kgraul@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org References: <1669218890-115854-1-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <352b1e15-3c6d-a398-3fe6-0f438e0e8406@linux.ibm.com> <1f87a8c2-7a47-119a-1141-250d05678546@linux.alibaba.com> <11182feb-0f41-e9a4-e866-8f917c745a48@linux.ibm.com> <4f6d8e70-b3f2-93cd-ae83-77ee733cf716@linux.alibaba.com> From: Jan Karcher Organization: IBM - Network Linux on Z In-Reply-To: <4f6d8e70-b3f2-93cd-ae83-77ee733cf716@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 8TmCdQp2zsjSlnUaXOg5idLt25Yl-2bH X-Proofpoint-GUID: w9gRtFxy7PZ6DxS1Mk79HZHO1f7E2-eQ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-11-25_02,2022-11-24_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2211250052 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 24/11/2022 20:53, D. Wythe wrote: > > > On 11/24/22 9:30 PM, Jan Karcher wrote: >> >> >> On 24/11/2022 09:53, D. Wythe wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/24/22 4:33 PM, Jan Karcher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24/11/2022 06:55, D. Wythe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/23/22 11:54 PM, D.Wythe wrote: >>>>>> From: "D.Wythe" >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch set attempts to optimize the parallelism of SMC-R >>>>>> connections, >>>>>> mainly to reduce unnecessary blocking on locks, and to fix >>>>>> exceptions that >>>>>> occur after thoses optimization. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> D. Wythe (10): >>>>>>    net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected >>>>>>      smc_llc_srv_add_link() >>>>>>    net/smc: fix application data exception >>>>>>    net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without >>>>>> smc_server_lgr_pending >>>>>>    net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and >>>>>>      smc_server_lgr_pending >>>>>>    net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex >>>>>>    net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently >>>>>>    net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore >>>>>>    net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in >>>>>>      smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse() >>>>>>    net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs() >>>>>>    net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with >>>>>> rw_semaphore >>>>>> >>>>>>   net/smc/af_smc.c   |  74 ++++---- >>>>>>   net/smc/smc_core.c | 541 >>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>>   net/smc/smc_core.h |  53 +++++- >>>>>>   net/smc/smc_llc.c  | 285 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>   net/smc/smc_llc.h  |   6 + >>>>>>   net/smc/smc_wr.c   |  10 - >>>>>>   net/smc/smc_wr.h   |  10 + >>>>>>   7 files changed, 801 insertions(+), 178 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jan and Wenjia, >>>>> >>>>> I'm wondering whether the bug fix patches need to be put together >>>>> in this series. I'm considering >>>>> sending these bug fix patches separately now, which may be better, >>>>> in case that our patch >>>>> might have other problems. These bug fix patches are mainly >>>>> independent, even without my other >>>>> patches, they may be triggered theoretically. >>>> >>>> Hi D. >>>> >>>> Wenjia and i just talked about that. For us it would be better >>>> separating the fixes and the new logic. >>>> If the fixes are independent feel free to post them to net. >>> >>> >>> Got it, I will remove those bug fix patches in the next series and >>> send them separately. >>> And thanks a lot for your test, no matter what the final test results >>> are, I will send a new series >>> to separate them after your test finished. >> >> Hi D., >> >> I have some troubles applying your patches. >> >>      error: sha1 information is lacking or useless (net/smc/smc_core.c). >>      error: could not build fake ancestor >>      Patch failed at 0001 optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections >> >> Before merging them by hand could you please send the v6 with the >> fixes separated and verify that you are basing on the latest net / >> net-next tree? >> >> That would make it easier for us to test them. >> >> Thank you >> - Jan >> > > Hi Jan, > > It's quite weird, it seems that my patch did based on the latest > net-next tree. > And I try apply it the latest net tree, it's seems work to me too. Maybe > there > is something wrong with the mirror I use. Can you show me the conflict > described > in the .rej file？ Hi D., sorry for the delayed reply: I just re-tried it with path instead of git am and i think i messed it up yesterday. Mea culpa. With patch your changes *can* be applied to the latest net-next. I'm very sorry for the inconvenience. Could you still please send the v6. That way i can verify the fixes separate and we can - if the tests succeed - already apply them. Sorry and thank you - Jan > > Thanks. > D. Wythe > > > > > > >