Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections

[Jan Karcher <jaka@linux.ibm.com>]

On 26/11/2022 10:08, D. Wythe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/25/22 2:54 PM, Jan Karcher wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
> 
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> I have sent the v6 with the fixes patches separated, if you have any 
> suggestion or
> advise, please let us know.
Hi D.,

we are reviewing and testing the fixes and the series.

Thank you
- Jan

> 
> Thanks.
> D. Wythe
> 
>