From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB71C433ED for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E9661288 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:41:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238587AbhDLMli (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:41:38 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57684 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238331AbhDLMli (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:41:38 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89DD161027; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:41:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1618231280; bh=WaFtiiKmNHgVzq4NDRvrOTKFY1dC8Al+r/vIHscgkJM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RbHekLOybsMedSNtAcKt+H6OyuTh9a7IeRoBm6HOwFupjU3Fg3mZuBDPDJK7O9JFj 3ezxqJ43DDxuMCisLNZy+PvAtVNgbqF+AyFmq/MGp3suW0iKg4tP062tv6AD+i8Y+p 5hDKxavgPxsrrInemYWRN+pEltlJZfxo6PWqCLNnIhxPg/Zp0whBIfywQzPMOV3L/9 kyQEt69HiBAFBEoHkDBH3M4ydGHB/SMoHzVHy2HJwUYlu3DlnNud/EBLqDqK/ugMfC eqY0DHXbbkSBo1MpKoby14y61fK0Gl8SNqsVN/XpZtYB65Ves4QVrCniDgrsSbSgG6 PXFn8LoZIkGAQ== Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:41:16 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Jinpu Wang Cc: Gioh Kim , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Bart Van Assche , Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , Haris Iqbal , Gioh Kim Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 for-next 1/3] RDMA/rtrs-clt: Print more info when an error happens Message-ID: References: <20210406123639.202899-1-gi-oh.kim@ionos.com> <20210406123639.202899-2-gi-oh.kim@ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 02:22:51PM +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:41 PM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Gioh Kim wrote: > > > From: Gioh Kim > > > > > > Client prints only error value and it is not enough for debugging. > > > > > > 1. When client receives an error from server: > > > the client does not only print the error value but also > > > more information of server connection. > > > > > > 2. When client failes to send IO: > > > the client gets an error from RDMA layer. It also > > > print more information of server connection. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim > > > Signed-off-by: Jack Wang > > > --- > > > drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-clt.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-clt.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-clt.c > > > index 5062328ac577..a534b2b09e13 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-clt.c > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-clt.c > > > @@ -437,6 +437,11 @@ static void complete_rdma_req(struct rtrs_clt_io_req *req, int errno, > > > req->in_use = false; > > > req->con = NULL; > > > > > > + if (unlikely(errno)) { > > > > I'm sorry, but all your patches are full of these likely/unlikely cargo > > cult. Can you please provide supportive performance data or delete all > > likely/unlikely in all rtrs code? > > Hi Leon, > > All the likely/unlikely from the non-fast path was removed as you > suggested in the past. > This one is on IO path, my understanding is for the fast path, with > likely/unlikely macro, > the compiler will optimize the code for better branch prediction. In theory yes, in practice. gcc 10 generated same assembly code when I placed likely() and replaced it with unlikely() later. > > We will run some benchmarks to see if it makes a difference. > > Thanks > > > > Thanks