On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:09:03AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> It does, but it doesn't look like something we'd want to check for each
> IO...
Both potential callers already have a access flags variable in object
that's assigned to at setup time so I don't see a problem here.
--
To unsubscribe
On 10/11/2015 15:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
FYI, this is the API I'd aim for (only SRP and no HW driver converted
yet):
This looks fine, although personally I find scope and direction flags
more confusing than access_flags (but maybe it's just me).
I think that the real issue here is the
On 11/11/2015 10:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:01:56AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
No need to change every driver.
I'd suggest something like
unsigned int rdma_cap_rdma_read_mr_flags(const struct ib_pd *pd)
{
if (rdma_protocol_iwarp(pd->device,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:07:14AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
> On 10/11/2015 15:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >FYI, this is the API I'd aim for (only SRP and no HW driver converted
> >yet):
>
> This looks fine, although personally I find scope and direction flags
> more confusing than
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:36:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > n = ib_map_mr_sg(desc->mr, state->sg, state->sg_nents,
> > -dev->mr_page_size);
> > +dev->mr_page_size,
> > +/*
> > + * XXX: add a bool write
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:01:56AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> No need to change every driver.
>
> I'd suggest something like
>
> unsigned int rdma_cap_rdma_read_mr_flags(const struct ib_pd *pd)
> {
> if (rdma_protocol_iwarp(pd->device, rdma_start_port(pd->device)))
>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:51:10PM +0100, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> Why were those hw providers not modified to
> enforce IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE when needed, instead of asking users to
> set it for them ?
iWarp hardware simply cannot do it it all.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:44:13PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> Different devices may require different access permissions
> for rdma reads e.g. for Infiniband devices, local write access
> suffices while iWARP devices require remote write permissions as
> well.
>
> This situation generates
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:41:47AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> FYI, this is the API I'd aim for (only SRP and no HW driver converted
> yet):
> n = ib_map_mr_sg(desc->mr, state->sg, state->sg_nents,
> - dev->mr_page_size);
> +
On 10/11/2015 14:28, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Hi Yann,
Why were those hw providers not modified to
enforce IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE when needed, instead of asking users to
set it for them ?
Do you mean that ULPs will set IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE and
iWARP providers executing the memory
On 11/10/2015 6:51 AM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2015 à 12:44 +0200, Sagi Grimberg a écrit :
Also, set rdma_read_access_flags in the relevant device drivers:
mlx4, mlx5, qib, ocrdma, nes: IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE
cxgb3, cxgb4, hfi: IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE | IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE
Sagi, the Windows NDKPI has an NDK_MR_FLAG_RDMA_READ_SINK attribute
which the upper layer can use to convey this information, I've mentioned
it here before.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh439908(v=vs.85).aspx
Thanks for the tip Tom.
When this approach is used,
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:44:13PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> Different devices may require different access permissions
> for rdma reads e.g. for Infiniband devices, local write access
> suffices while iWARP devices require remote write permissions as
> well.
>
> This situation generates
From all I can tell nes also is a iWarp driver.
It is.. I don't know why I treated it as IB :)
--
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
Different devices may require different access permissions
for rdma reads e.g. for Infiniband devices, local write access
suffices while iWARP devices require remote write permissions as
well.
This situation generates extra logic for ULPs that need to be aware
of the underlying device to
Hi,
Le mardi 10 novembre 2015 à 12:44 +0200, Sagi Grimberg a écrit :
> Different devices may require different access permissions
> for rdma reads e.g. for Infiniband devices, local write access
> suffices while iWARP devices require remote write permissions as
> well.
>
> This situation
Hi Yann,
Why were those hw providers not modified to
enforce IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE when needed, instead of asking users to
set it for them ?
Do you mean that ULPs will set IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE and
iWARP providers executing the memory registration will add
IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE? That's
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:42:44PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >When this approach is used, the upper layer doesn't have to be aware
> >at all of the lower layer's details.
>
> Yea, we could do that too. Any preferences from other people?
> I'm pretty indifferent on which way to go...
Yes,
18 matches
Mail list logo
