Caitlin Bestler wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 3:58 PM, Steve Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the short term, I claim we just implement this as part of linux
iwarp connection setup (mandating a 0B read be sent from the active
side). Your proposal to add meta-data to the private data requires a
standards change anyway and is, IMO, the 2nd phase of this whole
enchilada...
Steve.
I don't see how you can have any solution here that does not require meta-data.
For non-peer-to-peer connections neither a zero length RDMA Read or Write
should be sent. An extraneous RDMA Read is particularly onerous for a short
lived connection that fits the classic active/passive model. So *something*
is telling the CMA layer that this connection may need an MPA unjam action.
If that isn't meta-data, what is it?
I assumed the 0B read would _always_ be sent as part of establishing an
iWARP connection using linux and the rdma-cm.
Further, the RDMA Read solution is adequate whenever the RDMA Write
solution would have been (although at an unnecessary extra cost), but
as near as I can determine it is not a complete solution. If the passive
side needs an untagged message completion then *something* needs
to send it. How can the CM layer (or, I suppose, the ULP itself) know
that this untagged NOP message must be sent without meta-data?
I believe at Reno we had the current rnic vendors all saying a SEND or
0B read will work. So: If someone has current iwarp HW that will _not_
handle this problem by doing the 0B read hack, please speak up now.
As I see it, if we want to do the minimum that is required, but be certain
that it is adequate, we need a per-connection setup meta-data exchange.
Are you going to prototype this?
Steve.
_______________________________________________
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
