public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Avihai Horon <avihaih@nvidia.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 1/2] RDMA: Enable Relaxed Ordering by default for kernel ULPs
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:27:46 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210528182746.GA3645229@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73af770234656d5f884ead5b8d40132d9ed289d6.1621505111.git.leonro@nvidia.com>

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:13:35PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> index 05dbc216eb64..b7bda44e9189 100644
> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
> @@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@ enum ib_access_flags {
>  	IB_ZERO_BASED = IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_ZERO_BASED,
>  	IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND = IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND,
>  	IB_ACCESS_HUGETLB = IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_HUGETLB,
> -	IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING = IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING,
> +	IB_ACCESS_DISABLE_RELAXED_ORDERING = IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_FIRST,
>  
>  	IB_ACCESS_OPTIONAL = IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_RANGE,
>  	IB_ACCESS_SUPPORTED =

IB_ACCESS_SUPPORTED should be deleted too

> -				 IB_ACCESS_SUPPORTED);
> +				 ((IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_HUGETLB << 1) - 1) |
> +					 IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_OPTIONAL_RANGE);

This would do well as a IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_MR_SUPPORTED constant

> @@ -4679,4 +4679,70 @@ static inline u32 rdma_calc_flow_label(u32 lqpn, u32 rqpn)
>  
>  const struct ib_port_immutable*
>  ib_port_immutable_read(struct ib_device *dev, unsigned int port);
> +
> +static inline void process_access_flag(unsigned int *dest_flags,
> +				       unsigned int out_flag,
> +				       unsigned int *src_flags,
> +				       unsigned int in_flag)
> +{
> +	if (!(*src_flags & in_flag))
> +		return;
> +
> +	*dest_flags |= out_flag;
> +	*src_flags &= ~in_flag;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void process_access_flag_inv(unsigned int *dest_flags,
> +					   unsigned int out_flag,
> +					   unsigned int *src_flags,
> +					   unsigned int in_flag)
> +{
> +	if (*src_flags & in_flag) {
> +		*dest_flags &= ~out_flag;
> +		*src_flags &= ~in_flag;
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	*dest_flags |= out_flag;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int copy_mr_access_flags(unsigned int *dest_flags,
> +				       unsigned int src_flags)
> +{
> +	*dest_flags = 0;
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_MW_BIND);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ZERO_BASED, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_ZERO_BASED);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND);
> +
> +	process_access_flag(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_HUGETLB, &src_flags,
> +			    IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_HUGETLB);
> +
> +	process_access_flag_inv(dest_flags, IB_ACCESS_DISABLE_RELAXED_ORDERING,
> +				&src_flags, IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING);

This seems over complicated, why not just:

dst_flags = IB_ACCESS_DISABLE_RELAXED_ORDERING
if (src_flags & IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE)
    dst_flags |= IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE;
if (src_flags & IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING)
    dst_flags &= ~IB_ACCESS_DISABLE_RELAXED_ORDERING;

if (src_flags & ~IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_MR_SUPPORTED)
  return -EINVAL;

And the QP version is the same as the MR, just with a different
supported flags check

Jason

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-05-28 18:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-20 10:13 [PATCH rdma-next v1 0/2] Enable relaxed ordering for ULPs Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-20 10:13 ` [PATCH rdma-next v1 1/2] RDMA: Enable Relaxed Ordering by default for kernel ULPs Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-27 10:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-28 18:27   ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-05-20 10:13 ` [PATCH rdma-next v1 2/2] RDMA/mlx5: Allow modifying Relaxed Ordering via fast registration Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-26 19:49   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-27 11:09     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-27 14:57       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-27 15:06         ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-02 12:16     ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-26 19:30 ` [PATCH rdma-next v1 0/2] Enable relaxed ordering for ULPs Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-27  8:11   ` David Laight
2021-05-31 18:13     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-31 21:45       ` David Laight
2021-05-31 22:44         ` Jason Gunthorpe

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=20210528182746.GA3645229@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=avihaih@nvidia.com \
    --cc=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    /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