Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme-rdma: assign completion vector correctly

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
To: Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>
Cc: yaminf@mellanox.com, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	idanb@mellanox.com, israelr@mellanox.com,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, shlomin@mellanox.com,
	kbusch@kernel.org, ogerlitz@mellanox.com,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme-rdma: assign completion vector correctly
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:22:55 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200624142255.GR2874652@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e102b77-79bb-0dc6-48e7-10cc3aefc9a8@mellanox.com>

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:44:06AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> On 6/24/2020 11:37 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:34:22AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 6/23/2020 8:34 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> > > > > > The completion vector index that is given during CQ creation can't
> > > > > > exceed the number of support vectors by the underlying RDMA device. This
> > > > > > violation currently can accure, for example, in case one will try to
> > > > > > connect with N regular read/write queues and M poll queues and the sum
> > > > > > of N + M > num_supported_vectors. This will lead to failure in establish
> > > > > > a connection to remote target. Instead, in that case, share a completion
> > > > > > vector between queues.
> > > > > That sounds like a RC patch? Where is the fixes line? Why is it in
> > > > > this series?
> > > > Agree, this should be sent as a separate patch.
> > > The reason I sent it in 1 series is to avoid conflicts. Since all the
> > > patches can go to nvme-5.8, I tried to make life easier.
> > > 
> > > We can do it separately of course.
> > > 
> > > Christoph,
> > > 
> > > would you like to merge patches 1+2 from this series or should I send them
> > > again as well ?
> > I don't think 1+2 are 5.8 material, so please just resend 3 standalone
> > for now, and then resend 1+2 once I've merged it and rebased nvme-5.9
> > on top of nvme-5.8.
> 
> Ok. Actually 1+2 were aimed to be merged to 5.8 but created a conflict
> between Jason's and Jens's trees.
> 
> If we go this way it means we can't push new features to RDMA and use it in
> NVMf in the same cycle.
> 
> Jason,
> 
> can we push iSER CQ sharing to kernel-5.8 ?

I don't think so..

Where are these patches anyhow? I don't see any iser stuff in rdma
patchworks?

If you need a branch for something you should plan it out now.. I can
help organize the branch process for you, but you have to plan it
out :)

Jason

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme