From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Zhang <markz@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v2 11/14] RDMA/restrack: Make restrack DB mandatory for IB objects
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:50:01 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200924195001.GP9475@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200919090928.GC869610@unreal>
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:09:28PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 08:31:52PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:21:53PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
> > >
> > > Restrack stores the IB objects in the internal xarray and insertion
> > > where can fail. As long as restrack was helper tool for the
> > > debuggability, such failure were ignored.
> > >
> > > In the following patches, the ib_core will be changed to manage allocated
> > > IB objects in restrack DB for the proper memory lifetime. It requires to
> > > ensure that insertion errors are not ignored.
> >
> > Why? This looks like it is all about removing valid, not sure what the
> > kref has to do with it..
>
> This DB is going to be main source of all HW objects and their memory
> allocations. We want to be sure that everything there is valid.
Not really, what has happened here is no_track replaces valid. valid
used to mean the entry was in the xarray, now no_track means the same
thing. The patches in between had both because of how the conversion
ended up
This commit message should just explain that valid is no longer needed
and no_track now indicates if the entry is in the xarray or not so
destruction knows what to do.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-24 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-07 12:21 [PATCH rdma-next v2 00/14] Track memory allocation with restrack DB help Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 01/14] RDMA/cma: Delete from restrack DB after successful destroy Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-17 12:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-17 16:19 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-17 16:32 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 02/14] RDMA/mlx5: Don't call to restrack recursively Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 03/14] RDMA/mlx4: Provide port number for special QPs Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 04/14] RDMA/restrack: Count references to the verbs objects Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-18 17:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-19 8:30 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 05/14] RDMA/restrack: Simplify restrack tracking in kernel flows Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 06/14] RDMA/restrack: Improve readability in task name management Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-18 23:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-19 8:42 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 07/14] RDMA/cma: Be strict with attaching to CMA device Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-18 23:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-19 9:03 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-24 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 08/14] RDMA/core: Allow drivers to disable restrack DB Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 09/14] RDMA/counter: Combine allocation and bind logic Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 10/14] RDMA/restrack: Store all special QPs in restrack DB Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-18 23:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-19 8:27 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 11/14] RDMA/restrack: Make restrack DB mandatory for IB objects Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-18 23:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-19 9:09 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-24 19:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2020-09-24 19:59 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 12/14] RDMA/restrack: Support all QP types Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 13/14] RDMA/core: Track device memory MRs Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-24 20:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-09-07 12:21 ` [PATCH rdma-next v2 14/14] RDMA/restrack: Drop valid restrack field as source of ambiguity Leon Romanovsky
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=20200924195001.GP9475@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markz@nvidia.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).