On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Hefty, Sean <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What happens? > > Provider specific :)
Hmm. >> 1. The lack of receive buffers at the target should trigger an error at >> the sender indicating that message A was not delivered. >> >> 2. Or: >> >> 2a. If receive buffers are eventually posted at the target, message A >> will be delivered successfully. >> 2b. If the target endpoint is closed before receive buffers are >> available at the target for message A, an error is triggered at the >> sender indicating that message A was not delivered >> 2c. If message A has not been delivered within a given timeout (for any >> reason -- to include lack of buffers at the target), an error is >> triggered at the sender indicating that message A was not delivered >> >> In short: assuming a receiver a) continually posts receive buffers, and >> b) doesn't close its endpoint, do senders need to worry about credits >> with RDM endpoints? > > IMO, the ideal case is option 2. This relates to the resource management > enabled attribute. With RM disabled, option 1 is a valid way to handle the > issue. With RM enabled, I would expect the provider to implement something > closer to option 2. I don't quite grok this answer: 2a and 2b could happen together, but I kinda considered 2c to be a different option (i.e., I specifically didn't mention timeout in 2a or 2b). I did miss the entire section on fi_domain(3) regarding resource management, though. Reading that section, it implies that when RM is enabled -- assuming a well-behaving (set of) sender(s) and receiver -- one should not need to worry about send/receive credit schemes. -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ ofiwg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg
