Roland Dreier wrote:
In other words this check catches common bugs and makes them a gazillion times
easier to find and fix. So unless the performance impact is extreme, I'm
inclined to leave it
okay, lets leave this like that for unless someone comes with
performance data that shows this is r
> mmm, why is that common? typically there's a higher layer to which the
> IB ULP advertises some sort of maximal number of credits (e.g in the
> SCSI case, iser and srp specify the maximal number of commands in the
> scsi host template) or the ULP informs a higher layer that no more
> sends
Roland Dreier wrote:
I do think it is quite common to see this WQ overflow check trigger, even for
kernel code
mmm, why is that common? typically there's a higher layer to which the
IB ULP advertises some sort of maximal number of credits (e.g in the
SCSI case, iser and srp specify the maximal
> I wonder if the overflow check could be removed all together and be
> left to the ULP (kernel is trusted environment...) is there any risk
> in doing so? this way the WR posting code will not experience
> contention with the poll WC code on the CQ lock.
We could do that I guess if it's a re
Roland Dreier wrote:
Actually I was planning on sending it for 2.6.33, since it's so small and
obvious and we're reasonable early in the cycle. Not sure about -stable though
-- has this been hit in practice?
I agree that it should go into 2.6.33, since its so small there's no
reason to wait f
> With this not being a regression, I see that it went into your
> for-next branch and as such I assume will be available by 2.6.34. Are
> you fine with the patch going into the -stable series?
Actually I was planning on sending it for 2.6.33, since it's so small
and obvious and we're reasonab
Roland Dreier wrote:
> thanks, applied.
With this not being a regression, I see that it went into your for-next branch
and as such I assume will be available by 2.6.34. Are you fine with the patch
going into the -stable series?
Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe l
thanks, applied.
--
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
the post recv flow should check wq overflow using the recv and not the send cq
Signed-off-by: Or Gerlitz
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c
index 989555c..2a97c96 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c
@@ -17
