public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>
To: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
	Gerd Bayer <gbayer@linux.ibm.com>,
	twinkler@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
	agordeev@linux.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
	kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com,
	jaka@linux.ibm.com
Cc: borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
	alibuda@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v5 04/11] net/smc: implement some unsupported operations of loopback-ism
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:12:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12ae995f-4af4-4c6b-9130-04672d157293@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46e8e227-8058-4062-a9db-6b9c774f63cc@linux.alibaba.com>



On 09.04.24 03:44, Wen Gu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/4/4 23:15, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>> On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 21:12 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024/4/4 19:42, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 17:32 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/4/4 00:25, Gerd Bayer wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2024-03-24 at 21:55 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>>>>>>> This implements some operations that loopback-ism does not support
>>>>>>> currently:
>>>>>>>     - vlan operations, since there is no strong use-case for it.
>>>>>>>     - signal_event operations, since there is no event to be processed
>>>>>>> by the loopback-ism device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Wen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if the these operations that are not supported by loopback-ism
>>>>>> should rather be marked "optional" in the struct smcd_ops, and the
>>>>>> calling code should call these only when they are implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course this would mean more changes to net/smc/smc_core.c - but
>>>>>> loopback-ism could omit these "boiler-plate" functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gerd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the thoughts! I agree that checks like 'if(smcd->ops->xxx)'
>>>>> can avoid the device driver from implementing unsupported operations. But I
>>>>> am afraid that which operations need to be defined as 'optional' may differ
>>>>> from different device perspectives (e.g. for loopback-ism they are vlan-related
>>>>> opts and signal_event). So I perfer to simply let the smc protocol assume
>>>>> that all operations have been implemented, and let drivers to decide which
>>>>> ones are unsupported in implementation. What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Gerd, in my opinion it is better to document ops as
>>>> optional and then allow their function pointers to be NULL and check
>>>> for that. Acting like they are supported and then they turn out to be
>>>> nops to me seems to contradict the principle of least surprises. I also
>>>> think we can find a subset of mandatory ops without which SMC-D is
>>>> impossible and then everything else should be optional.
>>>
>>> I see. If we all agree to classify smcd_ops into mandatory and optional ones,
>>> I'll add a patch to mark the optional ops and check if they are implemented.
>>
>> Keep in mind I don't speak for the SMC maintainers but that does sound
>> reasonable to me.
>>
> 
> Hi Wenjia and Jan, do you have any comments on this and [1]? Thanks!
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/60b4aec0b4bf4474d651b653c86c280dafc4518a.camel@linux.ibm.com/
> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a first guess I think the following options may be mandatory:
>>>>
>>>> * query_remote_gid()
>>>> * register_dmb()/unregister_dmb()
>>>> * move_data()
>>>>     For this one could argue that either move_data() or
>>>>     attach_dmb()/detach_dmb() is required though personally I would
>>>>     prefer to always have move_data() as a fallback and simple API
>>>> * supports_v2()
>>>> * get_local_gid()
>>>> * get_chid()
>>>> * get_dev()
>>> I agree with this classification. Just one point, maybe we can take
>>> supports_v2() as an optional ops, like support_dmb_nocopy()? e.g. if
>>> it is not implemented, we treat it as an ISMv1.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> Interpreting a NULL supports_v2() as not supporting v2 sounds
>> reasonable to me.
> 

Let me add my thoughts to the discussion:
For the vlan operations and signal_event operations that loopback-ism does
not support:
I like the idea to set the ops to NULL and make sure the caller checks that
and can live with it. That is readable and efficient.

I don't think there is a need to discuss a strategy now, which ops could be
optional in the future. This is all inside the kernel. loopback-ism is even 
inside the smc module. Such comments in the code get outdated very easily.

I would propose to mark those as optional struct smcd_ops, where all callers can 
handle a NULL pointer and still be productive.
Future support of other devices for SMC-D can update that.




  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-11 11:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-24 13:55 [RFC PATCH net-next v5 00/11] net/smc: SMC intra-OS shortcut with loopback-ism Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 01/11] net/smc: decouple ism_client from SMC-D DMB registration Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 02/11] net/smc: introduce loopback-ism for SMC intra-OS shortcut Wen Gu
2024-04-03 11:27   ` Gerd Bayer
2024-04-04  8:46     ` Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 03/11] net/smc: implement ID-related operations of loopback-ism Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 04/11] net/smc: implement some unsupported " Wen Gu
2024-04-03 16:25   ` Gerd Bayer
2024-04-04  9:32     ` Wen Gu
2024-04-04 11:42       ` Niklas Schnelle
2024-04-04 13:12         ` Wen Gu
2024-04-04 15:15           ` Niklas Schnelle
2024-04-09  1:44             ` Wen Gu
2024-04-11 11:12               ` Alexandra Winter [this message]
2024-04-12  2:02                 ` Wen Gu
2024-04-12 12:20                   ` Wenjia Zhang
2024-04-12 14:58                   ` Alexandra Winter
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 05/11] net/smc: implement DMB-related " Wen Gu
2024-04-03 17:20   ` Gerd Bayer
2024-04-04 10:20     ` Wen Gu
2024-04-04 11:27       ` Niklas Schnelle
2024-04-04 13:44         ` Wen Gu
2024-04-04 15:24           ` Niklas Schnelle
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 06/11] net/smc: ignore loopback-ism when dumping SMC-D devices Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 07/11] net/smc: register loopback-ism into SMC-D device list Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 08/11] net/smc: add operations to merge sndbuf with peer DMB Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 09/11] net/smc: {at|de}tach sndbuf to peer DMB if supported Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 10/11] net/smc: adapt cursor update when sndbuf and peer DMB are merged Wen Gu
2024-03-24 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 11/11] net/smc: implement DMB-merged operations of loopback-ism Wen Gu
2024-04-03  6:35 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v5 00/11] net/smc: SMC intra-OS shortcut with loopback-ism Wen Gu
2024-04-03 11:10   ` Gerd Bayer
2024-04-04 10:27     ` Wen Gu
2024-04-11  7:45     ` Wen Gu
2024-04-11  9:32       ` Wenjia Zhang
2024-04-11  9:56         ` Wen Gu

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=12ae995f-4af4-4c6b-9130-04672d157293@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=wintera@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=gbayer@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=guwen@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jaka@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tonylu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=twinkler@linux.ibm.com \
    --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