On 1/22/2014 2:43 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Or Gerlitz <or.gerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted > three months ago. We
deserve a response from the maintainer that goes beyond "I need to
think on that".
Responsiveness was stated by Linus to be the #1 requirement from
kernel maintainers.
Hi Roland, I'll try to respond here.
removing LKML and adding Linux-scsi.
Or, I'm not sure what response you're after from me. Linus has also
said that maintainers should say "no" a lot more
(http://lwn.net/Articles/571995/) so maybe you want me to say, "No, I
won't merge this patch set, since it adds a bunch of complexity to
support a feature no one really cares about."
1. I disagree about no-one cares about DIF/DIX. We are witnessing growing
interests in this especially for RDMA.
2. We put a lot of efforts to avoid complexity here and plug-in as
simple as possible.
Application that will choose to use DIF will implement only 3 steps:
a. allocate signature enabled MR.
b. register signature enabled MR with DIF attributes (via post_send) and
then do RDMA.
c. check MR status after transaction is completed (_lightweight_ verb
that can be called from interrupt context).
Is that it? (And yes I
am skeptical about this stuff — I work at an enterprise storage
company and even here it's hard to find anyone who cares about
DIF/DIX, especially offload features that stop it from being
end-to-end)
1. RDMA verbs are _NOT_ stopping DIF from being end-to-end.
OS (or SCSI in our specific case) passes LLD 2 scatterlists: data
{block1, block2, block3,...}, and protection {DIF1, DIF2, DIF3}.
LLD is required to verify the data integrity (block guards) and to
interleave over the wire {block1, DIF1, block2, DIF2....}.
You must support that in HW, you rather iSER/SRP will use giant copy's
to interleave by itself? or in case OS asked LLD
to INSERT DIF iSER/SRP will compute CRC for each data-block? RDMA
storage ULPs are transports - they should have no business with
data processing.
2. HW DIF offload also gives you protection across the PCI. the
data-validation is done (hopefully offloaded) also
when data+protection are written to the back-end device. end-to-end is
preserved.
3. SAS & FC have T10-PI offload. This is just adding RDMA into the game.
With this set of verbs iSER, SRP, FCoE Initiators and targets will be able
to support T10-PI.
I'm sure you're not expecting me to say, "Sure, I'll merge it without
understanding the problem it's solving
Problem: T10-PI offload support for RDMA based initiators. Supporting
end-to-end data integrity
while sustaining high RDMA performance.
or how it's doing that,"
How it's doing that:
- We introduce a new type of memory region that posses protection
attributes suited for data integrity offload.
- We Introduce a new fast registration method that can bind all the
relevant info for verify/generate of protection information:
* describe if/how to interleave data with protection.
* describe what method of data integrity is used (DIF type X, CRC,
XOR...) and the seeds that HW should start calculation from.
* describe how to verify the data.
- We Introduce a new lightweight check of the data-integrity status to
check if there were any integrity errors and get information on them.
Note: We made MR allocation routine generic enough to lay a framework to
unite all MR allocation
methods (get_dma_mr, alloc_fast_reg_mr, reg_phys, reg_user_mr, fmrs, and
probably more in the future...).
We defined ib_create_mr that can actually get mr_init_attr which can be
easily extended as opposed to the specific calls exists today.
So I would say this even reduces complexity.
Hope this helps,
Sagi.
--
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
