All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields"
	<bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
	Tom Talpey <tom-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: trond.myklebust-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org,
	schumaker.anna-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:32:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487881951.3448.10.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223201109.GC11882-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>

On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 15:11 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:06:25PM -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
> > On 2/23/2017 3:00 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 14:42 -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/2017 12:03 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h          | 1 +
> > > > > net/sunrpc/svcsock.c                     | 1 +
> > > > > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c | 2 ++
> > > > 
> > > > There's a possibly-important detail here. Not all RDMA transports have
> > > > "IETF-approved congestion control", for example, RoCEv1. However, iWARP
> > > > and (arguably) RoCEv2 do. On the other hand, as a nonroutable protocol,
> > > > RoCEv1 may not fall under this restriction.
> > > > 
> > > > Net-net, inspecting only the RDMA attribute of the transport may be
> > > > insufficient here.
> > > > 
> > > > It could be argued however that the xprtrdma layer, with its rpcrdma
> > > > crediting, provides such congestion. But that needs to be made
> > > > explicit, and perhaps, discussed in IETF. Initially, I think it would
> > > > be important to flag this as a point for the future. For now, it may
> > > > be best to flag RoCEv1 as not supporting congestion.
> > > > 
> > > > Tom.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > (cc'ing Chuck and the linux-rdma list)
> > > 
> > > Thanks Tom, that's very interesting.
> > > 
> > > Not being well versed in the xprtrdma layer, what condition should we
> > > use here to set the flag? git grep shows that the string "ROCEV1" only
> > > shows up in the bxnt_en driver. Is there some way to determine this
> > > generically for any given RDMA driver?
> > 
> > I would not code RoCEv1 as an exception, I would code iWARP and RoCEv2
> > as the only eligible ones. There are any number of other possibilities,
> > none of which should be automatically flagged as congestion-controlled.
> > 
> > I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with hardcoding such a list into RPC.
> > But it may be the best you can do for now. Chuck, are you aware of a
> > verbs interface to obtain the RDMA transport type?
> 
> If this gets too complicated--we've been allowing NFSv4/UDP for years,
> letting this one (arguable?) exception through in RDMA a little longer
> won't kill us.
> 

That's my feeling too. This is still an improvement over the status
quo, and hopefully anyone with RDMA hardware will have a bit more clue
as to whether it can properly support v4.

We can always further restrict when rdma_create_xprt sets the flag in a
later patch if we figure out some way to determine this generically. I
will plan to add a comment that we're setting this RDMA svc_xprt
universally even though it may not always be true.

> (And if we really shouldn't be doing NFSv4 over some RDMA transports--is
> it worth supporting them at all, if the only support we can get is
> NFSv3-only?)
> 

I'd be inclined to leave them working and just deny the use of v4 on
such transports.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: trond.myklebust@primarydata.com, schumaker.anna@gmail.com,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:32:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487881951.3448.10.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223201109.GC11882@fieldses.org>

On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 15:11 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:06:25PM -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
> > On 2/23/2017 3:00 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 14:42 -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/2017 12:03 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h          | 1 +
> > > > > net/sunrpc/svcsock.c                     | 1 +
> > > > > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c | 2 ++
> > > > 
> > > > There's a possibly-important detail here. Not all RDMA transports have
> > > > "IETF-approved congestion control", for example, RoCEv1. However, iWARP
> > > > and (arguably) RoCEv2 do. On the other hand, as a nonroutable protocol,
> > > > RoCEv1 may not fall under this restriction.
> > > > 
> > > > Net-net, inspecting only the RDMA attribute of the transport may be
> > > > insufficient here.
> > > > 
> > > > It could be argued however that the xprtrdma layer, with its rpcrdma
> > > > crediting, provides such congestion. But that needs to be made
> > > > explicit, and perhaps, discussed in IETF. Initially, I think it would
> > > > be important to flag this as a point for the future. For now, it may
> > > > be best to flag RoCEv1 as not supporting congestion.
> > > > 
> > > > Tom.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > (cc'ing Chuck and the linux-rdma list)
> > > 
> > > Thanks Tom, that's very interesting.
> > > 
> > > Not being well versed in the xprtrdma layer, what condition should we
> > > use here to set the flag? git grep shows that the string "ROCEV1" only
> > > shows up in the bxnt_en driver. Is there some way to determine this
> > > generically for any given RDMA driver?
> > 
> > I would not code RoCEv1 as an exception, I would code iWARP and RoCEv2
> > as the only eligible ones. There are any number of other possibilities,
> > none of which should be automatically flagged as congestion-controlled.
> > 
> > I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with hardcoding such a list into RPC.
> > But it may be the best you can do for now. Chuck, are you aware of a
> > verbs interface to obtain the RDMA transport type?
> 
> If this gets too complicated--we've been allowing NFSv4/UDP for years,
> letting this one (arguable?) exception through in RDMA a little longer
> won't kill us.
> 

That's my feeling too. This is still an improvement over the status
quo, and hopefully anyone with RDMA hardware will have a bit more clue
as to whether it can properly support v4.

We can always further restrict when rdma_create_xprt sets the flag in a
later patch if we figure out some way to determine this generically. I
will plan to add a comment that we're setting this RDMA svc_xprt
universally even though it may not always be true.

> (And if we really shouldn't be doing NFSv4 over some RDMA transports--is
> it worth supporting them at all, if the only support we can get is
> NFSv3-only?)
> 

I'd be inclined to leave them working and just deny the use of v4 on
such transports.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-23 20:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-23 17:03 [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 19:42   ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]     ` <2152dfdf-f847-2511-1600-6499b6ea9708-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:00       ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:00         ` Jeff Layton
     [not found]         ` <1487880034.3448.8.camel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:06           ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:06             ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]             ` <65056db6-f30a-c44d-b01c-b549887c4895-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:11               ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-23 20:11                 ` J. Bruce Fields
     [not found]                 ` <20170223201109.GC11882-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:26                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:26                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
     [not found]                     ` <20170223202609.GC26301-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:33                       ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:33                         ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]                         ` <18ef37c3-95db-9a2c-dbcb-f579672065d6-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:55                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:55                             ` Jason Gunthorpe
     [not found]                             ` <20170223205502.GA29673-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-24 15:08                               ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 15:08                                 ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]                                 ` <4eb1da3d-2690-7647-2d85-cc574bc1d564-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-24 17:17                                   ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 17:17                                     ` Jeff Layton
     [not found]                                     ` <1487956644.3314.4.camel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-24 18:03                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-24 18:03                                         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:32                   ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2017-02-23 20:32                     ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:17               ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 20:17                 ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 20:15     ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce congestion control protocol requirement for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:17 ` [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 2/4] sunrpc: flag transports as having both reliable and ordered delivery, and congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce transport requirements for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:38   ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Chuck Lever
2017-02-24 18:53     ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:23       ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 18:53   ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 21:22     ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:25   ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:34     ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:44       ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-27 11:59         ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 12:08           ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-27 12:55             ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 14:20               ` J. Bruce Fields

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=1487881951.3448.10.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=jlayton-h+wxahxf7alqt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=schumaker.anna-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=tom-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=trond.myklebust-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.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 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.