From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 for-next 00/16] On demand paging Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:16:20 +0300 Message-ID: References: <1404377069-20585-1-git-send-email-haggaie@mellanox.com> <5405D2D8.1040700@mellanox.com> <540F0CD8.9070002@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <540F0CD8.9070002-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Roland Dreier Cc: Latchesar Ionkov , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sagi Grimberg , Linux Kernel , Haggai Eran List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, Haggai Eran wrote: > On 04/09/2014, Roland Dreier wrote: >> Have you done any review or testing of these changes? If so can you >> share the results? > We have tested this feature thoroughly inside Mellanox. We ran random > tests that performed MR registrations, memory mappings and unmappings, > calls to madvise with MADV_DONTNEED for invalidations, sending and > receiving of data, and RDMA operations. The test validated the integrity > of the data, and we verified the integrity of kernel memory by running > the tests under a debugging kernel. Hi Roland, Per your request we provided the information on tests conducted with the patches. Note that the patches can't really disrupt existing applications that don't set the new IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND MR flag when they register memory. Also the whole set of changes to the umem area is dependent on building with CONFIG_INFINIBAND_ON_DEMAND_PAGING -- all in all, everything is in place for protecting against potential regression that this series could introduce. As you didn't provide any feedback for > six months, and we have all the above in place (report on stability tests, performance data and mechanics to avoid regressions) I think it would be fair to get this picked for the coming merge window, thoughts? Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752652AbaILVQW (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:16:22 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]:55556 "EHLO mail-oi0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751295AbaILVQU (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:16:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <540F0CD8.9070002@mellanox.com> References: <1404377069-20585-1-git-send-email-haggaie@mellanox.com> <5405D2D8.1040700@mellanox.com> <540F0CD8.9070002@mellanox.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:16:20 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 for-next 00/16] On demand paging From: Or Gerlitz To: Roland Dreier Cc: Latchesar Ionkov , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sagi Grimberg , Linux Kernel , Haggai Eran Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, Haggai Eran wrote: > On 04/09/2014, Roland Dreier wrote: >> Have you done any review or testing of these changes? If so can you >> share the results? > We have tested this feature thoroughly inside Mellanox. We ran random > tests that performed MR registrations, memory mappings and unmappings, > calls to madvise with MADV_DONTNEED for invalidations, sending and > receiving of data, and RDMA operations. The test validated the integrity > of the data, and we verified the integrity of kernel memory by running > the tests under a debugging kernel. Hi Roland, Per your request we provided the information on tests conducted with the patches. Note that the patches can't really disrupt existing applications that don't set the new IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND MR flag when they register memory. Also the whole set of changes to the umem area is dependent on building with CONFIG_INFINIBAND_ON_DEMAND_PAGING -- all in all, everything is in place for protecting against potential regression that this series could introduce. As you didn't provide any feedback for > six months, and we have all the above in place (report on stability tests, performance data and mechanics to avoid regressions) I think it would be fair to get this picked for the coming merge window, thoughts? Or.