Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:45406 "EHLO fieldses.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750948Ab3CKUAV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:00:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:00:17 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Tom Tucker <tom@ogc.us>,
        Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>,
        Shani Michaeli <shanim@mellanox.com>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@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: <20130311200017.GD642@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>
 <20130311191545.GA642@fieldses.org>
 <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA9286BA156@sacexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA9286BA156@sacexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:48:51PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 15:15 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:51:44PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > > On 03/11/2013 12:14 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> 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.
> 
> Nothing inside the RPC client should be using anything heavier than
> GFP_NOWAIT (unless done at setup).
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Putting it in the rpcrdma_req means that you have one copy per transport
> slot. Why not rather put it in the rpcrdma_xprt?
> AFAICS you only need this array at transmit time for registering memory
> for RDMA, at which time the transport XPRT_LOCK guarantees that nobody
> else is competing for these resources.

Oh, good.  If that works, Steve might want to look back at how that
array size was chosen?  I seem to recall there being some compromise due
to this array being on the stack, and that there might have been some
performance advantage to increasing it further, but I can't find the bug
right now....  (And I might be misremembering.)

--b.