> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kanevsky, Arkady > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:26 PM > To: Glenn Grundstrom; Sean Hefty; Steve Wise > Cc: Roland Dreier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OpenFabrics > General > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] [RFP] support for iWARP requirement - > activeconnectside MUST send first FPDU > > This is still a protocol and should be defined by IETF not OFA. > But if we get agreement from all iWARP vendors this will be a good > step. [felix] This will not work with a Chelsio RNIC which follows the IETF specification by a) not issuing a 0B RDMA Write to the wire and b) silently consuming an incoming 0B write. Therefore 0B RDMA Writes cannot be 'abused' for such a synchronization mechanism. I believe that the mentioned apps adhering to the iWarp requirement do a 'send' from the active side and only have the passive side issue RDMA ops once the incoming send has been received. I would guess that following a similar model is the best way to go and supported by all iWarp vendors implementing the IETF spec.
> If we can not get agreement on it on reflector lets do > it at SC'07 OFA dev. conference. > > Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395 > 1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16. Fax: 781-895-1195 > Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Glenn Grundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:02 PM > > To: Sean Hefty; Steve Wise > > Cc: Roland Dreier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > OpenFabrics General > > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] [RFP] support for iWARP > > requirement - activeconnect side MUST send first FPDU > > > > > > That is what I've been trying to push. Both MVAPICH2 and > > > OMPI have been > > > > open to adjusting their transports to adhere to this requirement. > > > > > > > > I wouldn't mind implementing something to enforce this in > > > the IWCM or > > > > the iWARP drivers IF there was a clean way to do it. So > > far there > > > > hasn't been a clean way proposed. > > > > > > Why can't either uDAPL or iW CM always do a send from the active to > > > passive side that gets stripped off? From the active side, > > the first > > > send is always posted before any user sends, and if > > necessary, a user > > > send can be queued by software to avoid a QP/CQ overrun. The > > > completion can simply be eaten by software. On the passive > > side, you > > > have a similar process for receiving the data. > > > > This is similar to an option in the NetEffect driver. A zero > > byte RDMA write is sent from the active side and accounted > > for on the passive side. This can be turned on and off by > > compile and module options for compatibility. > > > > I second Sean's question - why can't uDAPL or the iw_cm do this? > > > > > > > > (Yes this adds wire protocol, which requires both sides to support > > > it.) > > > > > > - Sean > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
