On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 03:35:52PM +0530, Abhijit Gangurde wrote:
>
> On 7/7/25 22:16, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 08:26:20PM +0530, Abhijit Gangurde wrote:
> > > On 7/7/25 12:51, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 10:57:13AM +0530, Abhijit Gangurde wrote:
> > > > > On 7/4/25 22:38, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 12:49:30PM +0530, Abhijit Gangurde wrote:
> > > > > > > On 7/2/25 23:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 10:18:03AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 01:38:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > +static void ionic_flush_qs(struct ionic_ibdev *dev)
> > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct ionic_qp *qp, *qp_tmp;
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct ionic_cq *cq, *cq_tmp;
> > > > > > > > > > > + LIST_HEAD(flush_list);
> > > > > > > > > > > + unsigned long index;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > + /* Flush qp send and recv */
> > > > > > > > > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > > > > > + xa_for_each(&dev->qp_tbl, index, qp) {
> > > > > > > > > > > + kref_get(&qp->qp_kref);
> > > > > > > > > > > + list_add_tail(&qp->ibkill_flush_ent, &flush_list);
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > > > > > > Same question as for CQ. What does RCU lock protect here?
> > > > > > > > > It should protect the kref_get against free of qp. The qp memory must
> > > > > > > > > be RCU freed.
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure that this was intension here. Let's wait for an answer from the author.
> > > > > > > As Jason mentioned, It was intended to protect the kref_get against free of
> > > > > > > cq and qp
> > > > > > > in the destroy path.
> > > > > > How is it possible? IB/core is supposed to protect from accessing verbs
> > > > > > resources post their release/destroy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After you answered what RCU is protecting, I don't see why you would
> > > > > > have custom kref over QP/CQ/e.t.c objects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > The RCU protected kref here is making sure that all the hw events are
> > > > > processed before destroy callback returns. Similarly, when driver is
> > > > > going for ib_unregister_device, it is draining the pending WRs and events.
> > > > I asked why do you have kref in first place? When ib_unregister_device
> > > > is called all "pending MR" already supposed to be destroyed.
> > > >
> > > > Thansk
> > > The custom kref on QP/CQ object is holding the completion for the destroy
> > > callback.
> > > If any pending async hw events are being processed, destroy would wait on
> > > this completion
> > > before it returns.
> > Please see how other drivers avoid such situation. There is no need in
> > custom kref.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> As per your suggestion, I looked some of the other RDMA drivers. While many
> are using locks, that approach would negate the lockless lookup we gain from
> the xarray.
> The MANA RDMA driver, for instance, uses a similar refcount and completion
> mechanism to handle asynchronous events.
Let's do what all other drivers do, please. I prefer simplest solution
and objects that can potentially be around after verbs objects were
cleaned doesn't sound right.
Thanks
>
> Thanks
>
>
