clarification on the mlx4 CQE structure

2010-01-19 Thread Or Gerlitz
Hi Yevgeny, looking on commit f780a9f mlx4_core: Add ethernet fields to CQE struct I see the following two changes: @@ -692,14 +692,13 @@ repoll: - wc-sl = cqe-sl 4; + wc-sl = be16_to_cpu(cqe-sl_vid 12); I wasn't sure if/why a conversion from

RE: clarification on the mlx4 CQE structure

2010-01-19 Thread Yevgeny Petrilin
@@ -692,14 +692,13 @@ repoll: - wc-sl = cqe-sl 4; + wc-sl = be16_to_cpu(cqe-sl_vid 12); I wasn't sure if/why a conversion from network order to host order is neeed here, can you clarify that? This commit has an endianess bug, that was fixed

Re: clarification on the mlx4 CQE structure

2010-01-19 Thread Or Gerlitz
Yevgeny Petrilin wrote: This commit has an endianess bug, that was fixed in commit f781a22f. The cqe-sl_vid field is a be16, so we needed to convert the sl value to host order. Before the commit this field was two u8 fields, so no conversion was needed okay, got it, thanks Or. -- To

Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: fix post_recv wq overflow check

2010-01-19 Thread Or Gerlitz
Roland Dreier wrote: I do think it is quite common to see this WQ overflow check trigger, even for kernel code mmm, why is that common? typically there's a higher layer to which the IB ULP advertises some sort of maximal number of credits (e.g in the SCSI case, iser and srp specify the

Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: fix post_recv wq overflow check

2010-01-19 Thread Roland Dreier
mmm, why is that common? typically there's a higher layer to which the IB ULP advertises some sort of maximal number of credits (e.g in the SCSI case, iser and srp specify the maximal number of commands in the scsi host template) or the ULP informs a higher layer that no more sends can

Re: mode connected infiniband

2010-01-19 Thread Roland Dreier
The last time I tried to use it the kernel began reporting lots of OOM events (2.6.30 stock). I thought this was well known because CM mode uses high order allocations?? That's not well-known to me. What's the backtrace for those high-order allocations? I thought the CM code was careful

Re: [PATCH 1/3] rdma_cm: Add support for a new RDMA_PS_LUSTRE Lustre port space

2010-01-19 Thread sebastien dugue
Hi Roland, On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:12:43 -0800 Roland Dreier rdre...@cisco.com wrote: Well, without a specific port space, the default for Lustre is to use the TCP port space so you cannot distinguish Lustre traffic from other traffic using that same port space. I'm still a