From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Doug Oucharek <dougso@me.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, "Drokin,
Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: o2iblnd: Stop MLX5 triggering a dump_cqe
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:14:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180319081433.aqh6xt2t6b2bf22k@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B7D07263-126A-4156-AD60-3A58E8852865@me.com>
I don't really understand this patch...
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:40:21PM -0700, Doug Oucharek wrote:
> We have found that MLX5 will trigger a dump_cqe if we don't
> invalidate the rkey on a newly alloated MR for FastReg usage.
>
> This fix just tags the MR as invalid on its creation if we are
> using FastReg and that will force it to do an invalidate of the
> rkey on first usage.
This paragraph makes the change seem like a limited workaround for a
bug in the MLX5 code. Why can't the MLX5 code be fixed instead?
Looking at the patch it doesn't seem like a limitted solution at all.
Now frd->frd_valid is *always* set to false. Why don't we instead just
delete ->frd_valid along with the newly dead code?
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Doug Oucharek <dougso@me.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, "Drokin,
Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: [lustre-devel] [PATCH] staging: lustre: o2iblnd: Stop MLX5 triggering a dump_cqe
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:14:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180319081433.aqh6xt2t6b2bf22k@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B7D07263-126A-4156-AD60-3A58E8852865@me.com>
I don't really understand this patch...
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:40:21PM -0700, Doug Oucharek wrote:
> We have found that MLX5 will trigger a dump_cqe if we don't
> invalidate the rkey on a newly alloated MR for FastReg usage.
>
> This fix just tags the MR as invalid on its creation if we are
> using FastReg and that will force it to do an invalidate of the
> rkey on first usage.
This paragraph makes the change seem like a limited workaround for a
bug in the MLX5 code. Why can't the MLX5 code be fixed instead?
Looking at the patch it doesn't seem like a limitted solution at all.
Now frd->frd_valid is *always* set to false. Why don't we instead just
delete ->frd_valid along with the newly dead code?
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-19 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-16 23:40 [PATCH] staging: lustre: o2iblnd: Stop MLX5 triggering a dump_cqe Doug Oucharek
2018-03-16 23:40 ` [lustre-devel] " Doug Oucharek
2018-03-19 8:14 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2018-03-19 8:14 ` Dan Carpenter
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=20180319081433.aqh6xt2t6b2bf22k@mwanda \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=dougso@me.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jsimmons@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
--cc=oleg.drokin@intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.