[ewg] [PATCH v1] mlx4_ib: Optimize hugetlab pages support
Since Linux may not merge adjacent pages into a single scatter entry through
calls to dma_map_sg(), we check the special case of hugetlb pages which are
likely to be mapped to coniguous dma addresses and if they are, take advantage
of this. This will result in a significantly lower number of MTT segments used
for registering hugetlb memory regions.
Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen e...@mellanox.co.il
---
In this version I also took care of the case where the kernel is
compiled without hugetlb support.
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c | 86 ++-
1 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c
index 8e4d26d..4c7a5bf 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/mr.c
@@ -119,6 +119,68 @@ out:
return err;
}
+static int handle_hugetlb_user_mr(struct ib_pd *pd, struct mlx4_ib_mr *mr,
+ u64 virt_addr, int access_flags)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
+ struct mlx4_ib_dev *dev = to_mdev(pd-device);
+ struct ib_umem_chunk *chunk;
+ unsigned dsize;
+ dma_addr_t daddr;
+ unsigned uninitialized_var(cur_size);
+ dma_addr_t uninitialized_var(cur_addr);
+ int restart;
+ int n;
+ struct ib_umem *umem = mr-umem;
+ u64 *arr;
+ int err = 0;
+ int i;
+ int j = 0;
+
+n = PAGE_ALIGN(umem-length + umem-offset) HPAGE_SHIFT;
+ arr = kmalloc(n * sizeof *arr, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!arr)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ restart = 1;
+ list_for_each_entry(chunk, umem-chunk_list, list)
+ for (i = 0; i chunk-nmap; ++i) {
+ daddr = sg_dma_address(chunk-page_list[i]);
+ dsize = sg_dma_len(chunk-page_list[i]);
+ if (restart) {
+ cur_addr = daddr;
+ cur_size = dsize;
+ restart = 0;
+ } else if (cur_addr + cur_size != daddr) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ } else
+cur_size += dsize;
+
+ if (cur_size HPAGE_SIZE) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ } else if (cur_size == HPAGE_SIZE) {
+ restart = 1;
+ arr[j++] = cur_addr;
+ }
+ }
+
+ err = mlx4_mr_alloc(dev-dev, to_mpd(pd)-pdn, virt_addr, umem-length,
+ convert_access(access_flags), n, HPAGE_SHIFT,
mr-mmr);
+ if (err)
+ goto out;
+
+err = mlx4_write_mtt(dev-dev, mr-mmr.mtt, 0, n, arr);
+
+out:
+ kfree(arr);
+ return err;
+#else
+ return -ENOSYS;
+#endif
+}
+
struct ib_mr *mlx4_ib_reg_user_mr(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
u64 virt_addr, int access_flags,
struct ib_udata *udata)
@@ -140,17 +202,19 @@ struct ib_mr *mlx4_ib_reg_user_mr(struct ib_pd *pd, u64
start, u64 length,
goto err_free;
}
- n = ib_umem_page_count(mr-umem);
- shift = ilog2(mr-umem-page_size);
-
- err = mlx4_mr_alloc(dev-dev, to_mpd(pd)-pdn, virt_addr, length,
- convert_access(access_flags), n, shift, mr-mmr);
- if (err)
- goto err_umem;
-
- err = mlx4_ib_umem_write_mtt(dev, mr-mmr.mtt, mr-umem);
- if (err)
- goto err_mr;
+ if (!mr-umem-hugetlb || handle_hugetlb_user_mr(pd, mr, virt_addr,
access_flags)) {
+ n = ib_umem_page_count(mr-umem);
+ shift = ilog2(mr-umem-page_size);
+
+ err = mlx4_mr_alloc(dev-dev, to_mpd(pd)-pdn, virt_addr,
length,
+ convert_access(access_flags), n, shift,
mr-mmr);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_umem;
+
+ err = mlx4_ib_umem_write_mtt(dev, mr-mmr.mtt, mr-umem);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_mr;
+ }
err = mlx4_mr_enable(dev-dev, mr-mmr);
if (err)
--
1.6.0.5
___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
[ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
[ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Also, FWIW, it has been discussed (and agreed, I thought) to include OMPI v1.3 in a 1.4.x release. On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Steve Wise wrote: I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org ] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Personally I do not have a problem with including it, since MPI is an isolated component and does not effect the core stack, but I thought that we had discussed in Sonoma last year not including major new features in point releases to reduce the QA that is needed. And, in general I think that is the way that kernel.org works, point releases are just for bug fixes. In any case, lets discuss it again in the EWG on Monday. woody -Original Message- From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 PM To: Steve Wise Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Also, FWIW, it has been discussed (and agreed, I thought) to include OMPI v1.3 in a 1.4.x release. On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Steve Wise wrote: I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org ] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
[ewg] Re: [PATCH v1] mlx4_ib: Optimize hugetlab pages support
OK, looks better. However the patch had a bunch of whitespace problems
(run checkpatch.pl to see them). Also:
+static int handle_hugetlb_user_mr(struct ib_pd *pd, struct mlx4_ib_mr *mr,
+ u64 virt_addr, int access_flags)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
+struct mlx4_ib_dev *dev = to_mdev(pd-device);
+struct ib_umem_chunk *chunk;
+unsigned dsize;
+dma_addr_t daddr;
+unsigned uninitialized_var(cur_size);
+dma_addr_t uninitialized_var(cur_addr);
+int restart;
+int n;
+struct ib_umem *umem = mr-umem;
+u64 *arr;
+int err = 0;
+int i;
+int j = 0;
+
+n = PAGE_ALIGN(umem-length + umem-offset) HPAGE_SHIFT;
seems this might underestimate by 1 if the region doesn't start/end on a
huge-page aligned boundary (but we would still want to use big pages to
register it).
+arr = kmalloc(n * sizeof *arr, GFP_KERNEL);
+if (!arr)
+return -ENOMEM;
+
+restart = 1;
+list_for_each_entry(chunk, umem-chunk_list, list)
+for (i = 0; i chunk-nmap; ++i) {
+daddr = sg_dma_address(chunk-page_list[i]);
+dsize = sg_dma_len(chunk-page_list[i]);
+if (restart) {
+cur_addr = daddr;
+cur_size = dsize;
+restart = 0;
+} else if (cur_addr + cur_size != daddr) {
+err = -EINVAL;
+goto out;
+} else
+cur_size += dsize;
+
+if (cur_size HPAGE_SIZE) {
+err = -EINVAL;
+goto out;
+} else if (cur_size == HPAGE_SIZE) {
+restart = 1;
+arr[j++] = cur_addr;
+}
+}
I think we could avoid the uninitialized_var() stuff and having restart
at all by just doing cur_size = 0 at the start of the loop, and then
instead of if (restart) just test if cur_size is 0.
- R.
___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
