Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:27:39 +0300 | From | Leon Romanovsky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 07/11] RDMA/nldev: Allow optional-counter status configuration through RDMA netlink |
| |
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 02:20:06PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 02:07:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > - return -EINVAL; > > + need_enable = false; > > + disabled = test_bit(i, stats->is_disabled); > > + nla_for_each_nested(entry_attr, > > + tb[RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_STAT_HWCOUNTERS], rem) { > > + index = nla_get_u32(entry_attr); > > + if (index >= stats->num_counters) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + if (i == index) { > > + need_enable = true; > > + break; > > + } > > + } > > > > - port = nla_get_u32(tb[RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_PORT_INDEX]); > > - if (!rdma_is_port_valid(device, port)) { > > - ret = -EINVAL; > > - goto err; > > + if (disabled && need_enable) > > + ret = rdma_counter_modify(device, port, i, true); > > + else if (!disabled && !need_enable) > > + ret = rdma_counter_modify(device, port, i, false); > > This disabled check looks racy, I would do the no-change optimization inside > rdma_counter_modify() > > Also, this is a O(N^2) algorithm, why not do it in one pass with a > small memory allocation for the target state bitmap?
We don't have many counters. Is this optimization really worth it?
Thanks
> > Jason
| |