[PATCH v12 09/26] nvme-tcp: RX DDGST offload

[Aurelien Aptel]

Sagi Grimberg <sagi at grimberg.me> writes:
> grr.. wondering if this is something we want to support (crc without
> ddp).

We agree, we don't want to support it. We will remove it and check it
doesn't happen in is_netdev_offload_active().

>> +     req->ddp.sg_table.sgl = req->ddp.first_sgl;
> Why is this assignment needed? why not pass req->ddp.first_sgl ?

Correct, this assignment is not needed we will remove it.

>>   static void nvme_tcp_error_recovery(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl)
>> @@ -1047,7 +1126,8 @@ static int nvme_tcp_recv_pdu(struct nvme_tcp_queue *queue, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>       size_t rcv_len = min_t(size_t, *len, queue->pdu_remaining);
>>       int ret;
>>
>> -     if (test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDP, &queue->flags))
>> +     if (test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDP, &queue->flags) ||
>> +         test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDGST_RX, &queue->flags))
>
> This now becomes two atomic bitops to check for each capability, where
> its more likely that neighther are on...
>
> Is this really racing with anything? maybe just check with bitwise AND?
> or a local variable (or struct member)
> I don't think that we should add any more overhead for the normal path
> than we already have.

Are you sure test_bit() is atomic? The underlying definitions seems
non-atomic (constant_test_bit or const_test_bit), are we missing
anything?

We were also following a similar implementation to NVME_TCP_Q_POLLING
which was using test_bit(). Should we move to a regular bool flag like
queue->data_digest?

>> +     if (queue->data_digest &&
>> +         test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDGST_RX, &queue->flags))
>
> And a third atomic bitop..

See above

>> +                 !test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDGST_RX, &queue->flags))
> and a 4'th atomic bitop...

See above

>> +     if (test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDGST_RX, &queue->flags))
>> +             nvme_tcp_ddp_ddgst_update(queue, skb);
>
> and a 5'th atomic bitop...

See above

>> +     if (test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_OFF_DDGST_RX, &queue->flags)) {
> and a 6'th... ok this is just spraying atomic bitops on the data
> path. Please find a better solution to this.

See above

Thanks