On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:01:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Ira,
>
> please take a look at the patches I've attached - they are just WIP
> that hasn't been tested as I'm on a vacation without access to my
> IB setup until New Year's Eve.
>
> Patch 1 is I think a genuine bug fix caused
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:01:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Ira,
>
> please take a look at the patches I've attached - they are just WIP
> that hasn't been tested as I'm on a vacation without access to my
> IB setup until New Year's Eve.
>
> Patch 1 is I think a genuine bug fix caused
On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 09:03:31AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 09:00:07PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:01:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Hi Ira,
> > >
> > > please take a look at the patches I've attached - they are just WIP
> > >
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 09:00:07PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:01:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi Ira,
> >
> > please take a look at the patches I've attached - they are just WIP
> > that hasn't been tested as I'm on a vacation without access to my
> > IB setup
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:01:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Ira,
>
> please take a look at the patches I've attached - they are just WIP
> that hasn't been tested as I'm on a vacation without access to my
> IB setup until New Year's Eve.
I have them on a branch.
I'll try and do some
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 07:35:14PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
>
> I'm still confused. Here is the code with the patch applied:
>
>
> /*
> * IB MAD completion callback
> */
> static void ib_mad_completion_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct ib_mad_port_private *port_priv;
Hi Ira,
please take a look at the patches I've attached - they are just WIP
that hasn't been tested as I'm on a vacation without access to my
IB setup until New Year's Eve.
Patch 1 is I think a genuine bug fix caused by the madness (pun
intendended) of the wr_id abuses.
Patch 2: passes the mad_s
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
> >Please just convert the mad handler to the new CQ API in
> >drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c. If you have any question about it I'd be
> >glad to help you.
>
> +1 on this suggestion.
>
> We had these sorts of questions in our ULPs
Please just convert the mad handler to the new CQ API in
drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c. If you have any question about it I'd be
glad to help you.
+1 on this suggestion.
We had these sorts of questions in our ULPs as well. The CQ API should
take care of all that for you and leaves you to just
Please just convert the mad handler to the new CQ API in
drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c. If you have any question about it I'd be
glad to help you.
--
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 h
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:25:33AM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 06:05:46PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> If you re-arm uncondit
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 06:05:46PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
>
> 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.
If you re-arm unconditionally you call for extra interrupts which you
can do without. When yo
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
> >
> >
> > @@ -2555,6 +2567,7 @@ static void ib_mad_completion_handler(struct
> > work_struct *work)
> > {
> > struct ib_mad_port_private
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:52:30PM -0500, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Dean Luick
>
>
> @@ -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;
>
>
On 12/23/2015 03:01 PM, ira.weiny wrote:
> Doug,
>
> With your email troubles I just wanted to make sure you did not lose track of
> this patch.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7822511/
I've got it, thanks.
> Thanks,
> Ira
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:52:30PM -0500, ira.we...@intel.co
Doug,
With your email troubles I just wanted to make sure you did not lose track of
this patch.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7822511/
Thanks,
Ira
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:52:30PM -0500, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Dean Luick
>
> It was found that when a process was rapidly send
From: Dean Luick
It was found that when a process was rapidly sending MADs other processes could
be hung in their unregister calls.
This would happen when process A was injecting packets fast enough that the
single threaded workqueue was never exiting ib_mad_completion_handler.
Therefore when pr
17 matches
Mail list logo