On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:24:45AM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > Conceptually, RSS/TSS are a set of send/receive work queues all > belonging to the same transport level address. There's no > parent-child relationship or needed pairing of send and receive > queues together in order to form a group.
This view makes sense to me as well. Can someone also confirm that using TSS doesn't affect the on-the-wire packets vs the non-TSS cases? I heard a few comments that sounded like TSS users get a per-queue QPN in the outgoing packet rather than a single QPN for the group, which would be pretty ugly. IMHO, this sort of stuff needs to have a very well defined on-the-wire behaviour, even if it is just documented in the ibverbs man pages. > Personally, I'd like to see a way that better captures the notion of > a 'set of work queues with the same address'. For example, it makes > more sense to me if a user created/destroyed the work queues > together, and if the WQs were viewed as being in a single state > (INIT, RTR, RTS...). Yah, an API that made work queues a sub object of the QP seems to make much more sense than trying to manage an array of QPs. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
