Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rds: ib: Reduce the contention caused by the asynchronous workers to flush the mr pool

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:49:20 -0400

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 02:08:48PM +0000, Praveen Kannoju wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 19 January 2022 06:47 PM
> To: Praveen Kannoju <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <[email-masked]>; Santosh Shilimkar <[email-masked]>; David S . Miller <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Rama Nichanamatlu <[email-masked]>; Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rds: ib: Reduce the contention caused by the asynchronous workers to flush the mr pool
> 
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 01:12:29PM +0000, Praveen Kannoju wrote:
> 
> > Yes, we are using the barriers. I was justifying the usage of
> > smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() over smp_load_acquire() and
> > smp_store_release() in the patch.
> 
> You failed to justify it.
> 
> Jason
> 
> Apologies, if my earlier point is not clear, Jason.
> Let me reframe:
> 
> 1. The introduced bool variable "flush_ongoing", is being accessed only in the function "rds_ib_free_mr" while spawning asynchronous workers.
> 
> 2. The ordering guaranteed by smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() would be
> sufficient for such simple usage and hence we did not use
> smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release().

Again you haven't defined why these barriers are any differnet from
acquire/release or even *what they are doing*

Jason