public inbox for linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>,
	jaka@linux.ibm.com, kgraul@linux.ibm.com
Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/7] net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:51:05 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a0de12ab-dd9a-acfe-4324-78815d6ebc35@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c45960d9-c358-e47b-0a33-1de8c3a8f94c@linux.ibm.com>



On 1/30/23 4:37 PM, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29.01.23 16:11, D. Wythe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/22 5:03 PM, D.Wythe wrote:
>>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>
>>> This patch attempts to remove locks named smc_client_lgr_pending and
>>> smc_server_lgr_pending, which aim to serialize the creation of link
>>> group. However, once link group existed already, those locks are
>>> meaningless, worse still, they make incoming connections have to be
>>> queued one after the other.
>>>
>>> Now, the creation of link group is no longer generated by competition,
>>> but allocated through following strategy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, all
>>
>> I have noticed that there may be some difficulties in the advancement of this series of patches.
>> I guess the main problem is to try remove the global lock in this patch, the risks of removing locks
>> do harm to SMC-D, at the same time, this patch of removing locks is also a little too complex.
>>
>> So, I am considering that we can temporarily delay the advancement of this patch. We can works on
>> other patches first. Other patches are either simple enough or have no obvious impact on SMC-D.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Best wishes.
>> D. Wythe
>>
>>
> Hi D. Wythe,
> 
> that sounds good. Thank you for your consideration about SMC-D!

Hi Wenjia,

Thanks for your reply.

> Removing locks is indeed a big issue, those patches make us difficult to accept without thoroughly testing in every corner.
> 
> Best
> Wenjia

What do you mean by those patches? My plan is to delete the first patch in this series,
that is, 'remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending', while other patches
should be retained.

They has almost nothing impact on SMC-D or simple enough to be tested. If you agree with this,
I can then issue the next version as soon as possible to remove the first patch, and I think
we can quickly promote those patches.

Thanks.
Wenjia





  reply	other threads:[~2023-01-30 10:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-26  9:03 [PATCH net-next v6 0/7] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections D.Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 1/7] net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending D.Wythe
2023-01-29 15:11   ` D. Wythe
2023-01-30  8:37     ` Wenjia Zhang
2023-01-30 10:51       ` D. Wythe [this message]
2023-01-30 21:10         ` Wenjia Zhang
2023-01-31  3:06           ` D. Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 2/7] net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex D.Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 3/7] net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently D.Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 4/7] net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore D.Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 5/7] net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse() D.Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 6/7] net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs() D.Wythe
2022-11-26  9:03 ` [PATCH net-next v6 7/7] net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore D.Wythe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=a0de12ab-dd9a-acfe-4324-78815d6ebc35@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jaka@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kgraul@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wenjia@linux.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox