On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 06:51:30PM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:52:30PM -0500, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Dean Luick <dean.lu...@intel.com>
> >
> >
> > @@ -2555,6 +2567,7 @@ static void ib_mad_completion_handler(struct
> > work_struct *work)
> > {
> > struct ib_mad_port_private *port_priv;
> > struct ib_wc wc;
> > + int count = 0;
> >
> > port_priv = container_of(work, struct ib_mad_port_private, work);
> > ib_req_notify_cq(port_priv->cq, IB_CQ_NEXT_COMP);
>
> I think you shoudld push the call to ib_req_notify_cq outside the
> while loop. You don't need to arm the CQ if you re-queued the work.
> Only when you have drained the CQ should you re-arm.
Will it hurt to rearm? The way the code stands I think the worse that will
happen is an extra work item scheduled and an ib_poll_cq call.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about moving the ib_req_notify_cq outside of
the while loop. It seems like to do what you say we would need another work
item which just does ib_poll_cq. Is that what you meant?
Ira
>
> > @@ -2574,6 +2587,11 @@ static void ib_mad_completion_handler(struct
> > work_struct *work)
> > }
> > } else
> > mad_error_handler(port_priv, &wc);
> > +
> > + if (++count > MAD_COMPLETION_PROC_LIMIT) {
> > + queue_work(port_priv->wq, &port_priv->work);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.2
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
