On 6/10/2015 11:07 AM, Wan, Kaike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:40 AM >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:37 AM >>>> >>>>> >>>>> A SA cache is undeniably critical for fabric scalability and performance. >>>>> In user space, the ibacm application provides a good example of >>>>> pathrecord cache for address and route resolution. With the recent >>>>> implementation of the provider architecture, ibacm offers more >>>> extensibility as a SA cache. >>>>> In kernel, ipoib implements its own small cache for pathrecords, >>>>> which is however not available for general use. Furthermore, the >>>>> implementation of a SA cache in user space offers better >>>>> flexibility, larger capacity, and more robustness for the system. >>>>> >>>>> In this patch series, a mechanism is implemented to allow ib_sa to >>>>> send pathrecord query to a user application (eg ibacm) through netlink. >>>> >>>> While this appears to address the current upstream use model for ACM >>>> with it's multicast overlay backend where PRs are static, it does not >>>> appear to address PR changes. >>>> Should aging/revalidation of PRs be supported ? If so, would this >>>> make PRs similar at "high" level to IP neighbor cache in kernel ? >>> >>> Even for the default provider acmp, PRs will time out and the length of >> timeout is configurable. For other providers (eg ibssa), the PR change could >> be managed correctly and promptly, and this capability is beyond ibacm core >> itself. >> >> That deals with the update of PR in user space (ACM). Doesn't kernel need >> some way of knowing PR was updated ? > > Maybe. If a kernel client is interested in PR changes, it can register for > notification
Wouldn't the notification mechanism be via netlink ? What would the granularity be for the registrations and notifications ? > and once a notice is received, it can always go back to query for the new PR. > But that is the responsibility of the individual client and is beyond the > scope of this patch series. I thought that the goal is to have an interface that addresses kernel <-> userspace needs for PRs in general and ACM was just first consumer. I'm not sure that it's sufficient for other ACM providers. -- Hal > Kaike > > -- 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
