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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F906C433FE for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 17:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241917AbiAFRdv (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:33:51 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42310 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241861AbiAFRdu (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:33:50 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00E9FC061201 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 09:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id c9-20020a17090a1d0900b001b2b54bd6c5so9409157pjd.1 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 09:33:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SVU9ojxKh3KV/GkNCH2U8jLzNnNx2BrytGLDVlfM2n4=; b=B7uhyCQuWye9aBf8yPcxb8+lyR96aaQke/GnM1Lg02NwGIbHRbmz4KClAxslwbq7U4 Yebv3rE7W75n0qCr4B1yNF0W+BOhQUuc64tplojX1gSd1ODhjw11QN/e6aeUwDBlNx0h bh1dxebH0y7DIlnsUH9/9L7tptxPiYlQ+MGC44/aH55Grc/D0PciIW6R7bG7OT9T8+1j uQIEyqiFgMEl0bAHBBRzwMzQCbLDyUed4PqBcENUbl7LhcZXdtdaw5dkA33E7Nr4+czL 4P4mEVEsj97UwkqlV2Xx1QadRt2QpvFJlmlsUkDyY+InxvI2q13Ja5cJoKNCGbZDOWgD 3OIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SVU9ojxKh3KV/GkNCH2U8jLzNnNx2BrytGLDVlfM2n4=; b=nm1O+JdQurIjM2XhIwBQa7hqtOr88wCgvN8wSgLTXETMNIePM9Stq1bY54DFlomHs7 YpDw/79rzJq74YxJOQBTq/uC6lOU2h4juf6zOu0fhU2sA309kkQHm9TOqlunp+nbX7LF UlYGYu7S4J1GkgFhZr+oCM0ZrFkL3j2mq1bxqHRBPi0aSgDg7EHTvXKTFxUxeVg6d64A pie7AYrVWJ6kbbYloNzL/kauXKlb+1XXxKt7C2J1Hb+e+CTWf8j5mqsoWj0p9/r6x8Yw u+H8jMRsHi6rpsCYQ8lcHuC0q2jIB6xZ9yzIY7Y4IO5WBKm7FhP46KYSNCxuLrdmCUxp wiMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LRNFr3jx+eaFNonmMOu+X2hxDn9ojZvzk8EG7ucALRjSxJdrO w8vXZhZE3jHl8D0H4wOrlB+QPA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZaTVYpO1ItL4ZGLZUkEwmwFKFW3I/igBkCy9iAG62enlQpIFkRSuiwUlPtU89+7Kwcm6jMg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8505:b0:149:ac79:d8d6 with SMTP id bj5-20020a170902850500b00149ac79d8d6mr28217912plb.170.1641490429554; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 09:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ziepe.ca ([206.223.160.26]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ng7sm3343172pjb.41.2022.01.06.09.33.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Jan 2022 09:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from jgg by mlx with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1n5We2-00CQtq-FZ; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:33:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 13:33:46 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: "lizhijian@fujitsu.com" Cc: "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "zyjzyj2000@gmail.com" , "aharonl@nvidia.com" , "leon@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "mbloch@nvidia.com" , "liweihang@huawei.com" , "liangwenpeng@huawei.com" , "yangx.jy@fujitsu.com" , "rpearsonhpe@gmail.com" , "y-goto@fujitsu.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH rdma-next 08/10] RDMA/rxe: Implement flush execution in responder side Message-ID: <20220106173346.GU6467@ziepe.ca> References: <20211228080717.10666-1-lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com> <20211228080717.10666-9-lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com> <20220106002804.GS6467@ziepe.ca> <347eb51d-6b0c-75fb-e27f-6bf4969125fe@fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <347eb51d-6b0c-75fb-e27f-6bf4969125fe@fujitsu.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 06:42:57AM +0000, lizhijian@fujitsu.com wrote: > > > On 06/01/2022 08:28, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote: > >> + while (length > 0) { > >> + va = (u8 *)(uintptr_t)buf->addr + offset; > >> + bytes = buf->size - offset; > >> + > >> + if (bytes > length) > >> + bytes = length; > >> + > >> + arch_wb_cache_pmem(va, bytes); > > So why did we need to check that the va was pmem to call this? > Sorry, i didn't get you. > > I didn't check whether va is pmem, since only MR registered with PERSISTENCE(only pmem can > register this access flag) can reach here. Yes, that is what I mean, why did we need to check anything to call this API - it should work on any CPU mapped address. Jason