Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:57939 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753444Ab3CKTPu (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:15:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:15:45 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Tim Gardner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust , "David S. Miller" , Tom Tucker , Haggai Eran , Or Gerlitz , Shani Michaeli , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] SUNRPC: rpcrdma_register_default_external: Dynamically allocate ib_phys_buf Message-ID: <20130311191545.GA642@fieldses.org> References: <20130310202838.GL31448@fieldses.org> <1363023447-22453-1-git-send-email-tim.gardner@canonical.com> <20130311181450.GC30618@fieldses.org> <513E27C0.8050108@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <513E27C0.8050108@canonical.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:51:44PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote: > On 03/11/2013 12:14 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > >> > >> v2 - Move the array of 'struct ib_phys_buf' objects into struct rpcrdma_req > >> and pass this request down through rpcrdma_register_external() and > >> rpcrdma_register_default_external(). This is less overhead then using > >> kmalloc() and requires no extra error checking as the allocation burden is > >> shifted to the transport client. > > > > Oh good--so that works, and the req is the right place to put this? How > > are you testing this? > > > > (Just want to make it clear: I'm *not* an expert on the rdma code, so my > > suggestion to put this in the rpcrdma_req was a suggestion for something > > to look into, not a claim that it's correct.) > > > > Just compile tested so far. Incidentally, I've been through the call stack: > > call_transmit > xprt_transmit > xprt->ops->send_request(task) > xprt_rdma_send_request > rpcrdma_marshal_req > rpcrdma_create_chunks > rpcrdma_register_external > rpcrdma_register_default_external > > It appears that the context for kmalloc() should be fine unless there is > a spinlock held around call_transmit() (which seems unlikely). Right, though I think it shouldn't be GFP_KERNEL--looks like writes could wait on it. In any case, the embedding-in-rpcrdma_req solution does look cleaner if that's correct (e.g. if we can be sure there won't be two simultaneous users of that array). --b.