From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC9E9243954; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759730146; cv=none; b=Eb3LSA0LSkYCGaM679m2GERqWZpJk1ikBrTTAn4ZIdgHOrcs2bC3JleYyVzzQZIV5Y8MVb7YShb1Gg8c3v8ikaFLdVNYCwsg471lE060ZWHbKjdVaVAyvls/aNaat00uRxZg5GAS/Z2WfPaL4QkjY0mteBW7bjQyPtDru7BEjfc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759730146; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lVqnxG3KC25qa5DVh4AyhsAPiHaMQQPOhootVnvdlIo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MqUCDgJzH2kNPVSWEQRm3+I6DXgER2Ar21+QCXZRFRLl+MVy0Q9Ezzspa+S4eSlpnkuCDEK2vkS1JGURi/pUCdbssLgB/YzsKCglh59zC9p1SK0ipvPTKt0qTxF3OZpavza5Y4/z62GC/JmmHUhLOTYwt7AwPU9Erp48aaowGV0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=FKDpCBkg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="FKDpCBkg" Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 595DkVOw018174; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:33 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=La7zGt +nyFAzLEwpj7ynXIc1qbu7yeQFGLIbDyepaHs=; b=FKDpCBkgKgB3Xr86bbQ7Tf QYWw80pd9b8bng18Ub5QWlY/YJnFvpohEgFnObPKsQFqP+Q8OOH/WRtmV7+yJfyQ g5YhAu4GmuHY9YFkac8KunaHryAKd+gdj80UV86uK0Ut6MbjWmajR34sLMhE64wO OW8aAkgLUokQrK2pR/8pODy+QIyXgvXRRTpR4Kdr14lDOW2DvZYPzZ06Ecb0Ya9Z SPEMuDg0qtyJjiJgRl4aWE04SKbg7x3LZsKvlxDPF55oERuarV/dHUqQSC+ccTE5 SwjRePd55cFyerGx1KqzMyyMahTriDN02zc4OLpgNvLuABXkVGMVfshyypH6hVVg == Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 49jua8yf1v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:55:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0356517.ppops.net (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.1.12/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 5965fQGo004394; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:32 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 49jua8yf1r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:55:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 5965SuuU030981; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:31 GMT Received: from smtprelay03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.5]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 49kfdjve95-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:55:31 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.231]) by smtprelay03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 5965tTO712976706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:30 GMT Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0F758045; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981E758052; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.39.19.186] (unknown [9.39.19.186]) by smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:55:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 11:25:22 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] net/smc: handle -ENOMEM from smc_wr_alloc_link_mem gracefully To: dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, Halil Pasic , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Jonathan Corbet , "D. Wythe" , Sidraya Jayagond , Wenjia Zhang , Tony Lu , Wen Gu , Guangguan Wang , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20250929000001.1752206-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20250929000001.1752206-3-pasic@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Mahanta Jambigi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: a3AgJ2iUJ6qAbdHCn6hkJxjC9631NxLF X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: mjnQG6uiKhb8a6hfon6KkBeCQxcC-ftv X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjUxMDA0MDAyMiBTYWx0ZWRfX9h4UhhATBP6o 5EcWGzT9ZSTB8l9O5sfgqv1GnsXpJ0c+JSyGLk4gW8qlDcIsxJwdi6oV3VCr0m6fsDV2I0kDRVa QCXutM9BLZBWOd3zXs03std0vmKu2obSUcU9TrUGwkrJ3PeSKN4IRl+P7A1JRGkk7ZmB8ph91W5 jU+6t3qUEFPJ5whT63VHZJ1r/M5y637pVRTvRo6pOrhNeTjdMrbuR4wSZH6jfetZ034jq6S5xgo TyolVRrbXmRzD5y69UBW019BCNK6oULdf9GwH1+P4a2e2LJ2AQP+gGtiPjXD8eweYirj3UrTAdu 1DjaXqXGM0GI6Ni+F3IpDAd+UWiCfB4IM6BEHr6Y6kooBrqZ5SRoUKnU+SpyZJawYOZENHvJcjG xpci0clnoSLjJD1CA56Tbm0N1sXASA== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=QdBrf8bv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=68e359d5 cx=c_pps a=3Bg1Hr4SwmMryq2xdFQyZA==:117 a=3Bg1Hr4SwmMryq2xdFQyZA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=x6icFKpwvdMA:10 a=TtWLiSDBJoBebt9xJZoA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=cPQSjfK2_nFv0Q5t_7PE:22 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1117,Hydra:6.1.9,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-10-06_02,2025-10-02_03,2025-03-28_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2509150000 definitions=main-2510040022 On 29/09/25 7:20 am, Dust Li wrote: >> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.h b/net/smc/smc_core.h >> index 8d06c8bb14e9..5c18f08a4c8a 100644 >> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.h >> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.h >> @@ -175,6 +175,8 @@ struct smc_link { >> struct completion llc_testlink_resp; /* wait for rx of testlink */ >> int llc_testlink_time; /* testlink interval */ >> atomic_t conn_cnt; /* connections on this link */ >> + u16 max_send_wr; >> + u16 max_recv_wr; > > Here, you've moved max_send_wr/max_recv_wr from the link group to individual links. > This means we can now have different max_send_wr/max_recv_wr values on two > different links within the same link group. > Since in Alibaba we doesn't use multi-link configurations, we haven't tested Does Alibaba always use a single RoCE device for SMC-R? In that case how redundancy is achieved if that link goes down? > this scenario. Have you tested the link-down handling process in a multi-link > setup? I did test this after you query & don't see any issues. As Halil mentioned in worst case scenario one link might perform lesser than the other, that too if the kcalloc() failed for that link in smc_wr_alloc_link_mem() & succeeded in subsequent request with reduced max_send_wr/max_recv_wr size(half). > Otherwise, the patch looks good to me. > > Best regards, > Dust