Quoting r. Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] (repost) no qp lock on poll, separate sq/rq locks > > Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] (repost) no qp lock on poll, separate > > sq/rq locks > > > > Ugh, I think I missed something when I thought about this the first > > time around. It seems the test for WQ overflow assumes that all WQs > > have a power-of-2 size, which we currently don't enforce for Tavor > > mode. It seems there are two possible solutions: > > > > Round up WQ sizes for Tavor as well. I don't like this because it > > could potentially use a lot of extra memory. > > > > Or, add one more counter back into the WQ struct so we can keep > > track of both the next index to use as well as the total number of > > WQEs posted in Tavor mode (we still only need one counter in > > mem-free mode). > > > > I implemented the second option. Does this patch look reasonable? > > > > - R. > > > > True, I forgot that qp size may not be a power of 2 for tavor. > Good catch. > > But, it seems to me your patch does not handle unsignaled WQEs, since > tail is incremented by 1 on each completion. > I propose reverting, and applying the following simple patch. >
I forgot the SOB for that patch. Here it is: Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- MST - Michael S. Tsirkin _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
