> Quoting Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: Re: IPoIB-CM UC mode > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>Quoting Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>Yes, I know that there is a way to register for kernel level neighbour > >>update events, so on each neighbour update, ipoib cm reconnects, plus > >>you can remove the fast path memcmp we do today on the remote GUID, and > >>we done :) > > >In the typical case (remote side reboots) both the GID and the UD QPN stay > >the > >same, so it seems there won't be any neighbour update, right? If so, while > >playing with neighbour update events might get us data path speed-up, it > >will > >not solve the problem of detecting the connection is alive. > > I don't think we should give up here, first there might be a way (event) > and if not lets change the kernel :) to know that the neighbouring > subsystem issued a broadcast arp on a nieghbour. > Second, let me think...
Frankly, I like the idea of using our own keepalive better: it will also work if we have e.g. multiple connections per neighbour. > What did the people who wrote the RFC said about the need / > implementation of liveness protocol? That it's a general IB problem and should be addressed at IB level. Which it seems to be - with CM. -- MST _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
