Unfortunately, not much. There are a couple of files under the docs directory. Policy describes the general expectation, but if you're familiar with open source development, it's basic. The providers file captures some of the common code that's available for re-use, but it hasn't been updated in a while.
> -----Original Message----- > From: ofiwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Heinz, Michael > William > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 10:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ofiwg] Thinking about writing a provider... > > So, I have a question related to Hugo’s question… other than > https://ofiwg.github.io/libfabric/ and fi_provider, are there documents I can > read on > how to be a better maintainer of the PSM2 provider? > > ----- > Michael Heinz > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > On Apr 14, 2021, at 3:00 PM, [email protected] > <mailto:ofiwg- > [email protected]> wrote: > > Send ofiwg mailing list submissions to > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openfabri > cs.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fofiwg&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.william.heinz%40cornelis > networks.com%7Cac3c4925ee2344d3ff1f08d8ff7761e4%7C4dbdb7da74ee4b458747ef5ce5ebe68a%7C0% > 7C0%7C637540235521136674%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC > JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rgTe5E7EnhJPa6P4cVZvGlMm6%2BNRAdHRsve79KQ > TOSM%3D&reserved=0 > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ofiwg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Resource Management RX CQ and address vectors (BOLLORE, HUGO) > 2. Re: Resource Management RX CQ and address vectors (Hefty, Sean) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:33:54 +0000 > From: "BOLLORE, HUGO" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [ofiwg] Resource Management RX CQ and address vectors > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hello, > > I'm working with Mehdi Bendahhou (Atos) on a new provider. > We have a few questions about the API specification. > > First, we were wondering how to deal with the MULTI_RECV option when > checking overruns of the RX CQ. > When fi_recv is called with this option we cannot know how many messages > will be received and thus how many completions may result of this > operation. > If resource management is enabled, documentation states that the > provider must return -FI_EAGAIN if an operation could result in CQ > overruns. > Is there a specific case to apply with the MULTI_RECV option ? If not, > what should we do in this situation ? > > Second, we are unsure about the state of an address vector during the > execution of an application. > Are address vectors static as soon as the endpoint is enabled or can > they change dynamically ? > > Last, in a connectionless endpoint, is it required for a receiving > application to have the sender address in its address vector if the > fi_recv is posted with a src_addr to FI_ADDR_UNSPEC and/or > FI_DIRECTED_RECV is disabled ? > > If this helps to answer the last two questions, we are trying to > determine if at any given point an endpoint is able to retrieve a list > of all address/endpoints it is communicating with (both in emission and > reception). > > Thanks in advance to those who can enlighten us ! > Hugo Bolloré - Atos > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:22:05 +0000 > From: "Hefty, Sean" <[email protected]> > To: "BOLLORE, HUGO" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ofiwg] Resource Management RX CQ and address vectors > Message-ID: > > <dm6pr11mb4609a51ed8c1a6694e0e55559e...@dm6pr11mb4609.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > I'm working with Mehdi Bendahhou (Atos) on a new provider. > We have a few questions about the API specification. > > > > Welcome! > > > > First, we were wondering how to deal with the MULTI_RECV option > when > checking overruns of the RX CQ. > When fi_recv is called with this option we cannot know how many > messages > will be received and thus how many completions may result of > this > operation. > If resource management is enabled, documentation states that the > provider must return -FI_EAGAIN if an operation could result in > CQ > overruns. > Is there a specific case to apply with the MULTI_RECV option ? > If not, > what should we do in this situation ? > > > > This probably needs to be handled as part of flow control, to back off > the sender > if handling the receive would result in CQ overflow. In the current > implementations > that I'm aware of that handle MULTI_RECV, CQ overflow is handled. The > overflow entries > are queued in separate location. For example, the util_cq code will handle > this. > > We can discuss if the man pages need to be updated exclude multi-recv > from > resource management requirements. > > > > Second, we are unsure about the state of an address vector > during the > execution of an application. > Are address vectors static as soon as the endpoint is enabled > or can > they change dynamically ? > > > > They can change dynamically, and some applications do this (fabtest for > one). > But ultimately, this comes down to what your hardware can do and its target > applications. If needed, you can document this restriction. I know there are > environments where the implementation ends up using a static address vector, > possibly > pre-loaded before the app starts and shared between processes. > > > > Last, in a connectionless endpoint, is it required for a > receiving > application to have the sender address in its address vector if > the > fi_recv is posted with a src_addr to FI_ADDR_UNSPEC and/or > FI_DIRECTED_RECV is disabled ? > > > > No, the receiver does not have to have the sender's address in its AV. > Unidirectional transfers are supported. The use of an out of band, separate > communication library, should not be required. > > > > If this helps to answer the last two questions, we are trying to > determine if at any given point an endpoint is able to retrieve > a list > of all address/endpoints it is communicating with (both in > emission and > reception). > > > > It's not required from an API perspective. > > FWIW, the util providers (rxm, rxd) handle this by maintaining a map > between > addresses in the local AV, versus those peers that its communicating with. > It's > possible for the AV to contains addresses where remote communication has not > (yet) be > setup. Likewise, the endpoint may communicate with peers that are not in the > local AV. > > - Sean > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ofiwg mailing list > [email protected] > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openfabri > cs.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fofiwg&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.william.heinz%40cornelis > networks.com%7Cac3c4925ee2344d3ff1f08d8ff7761e4%7C4dbdb7da74ee4b458747ef5ce5ebe68a%7C0% > 7C0%7C637540235521136674%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC > JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rgTe5E7EnhJPa6P4cVZvGlMm6%2BNRAdHRsve79KQ > TOSM%3D&reserved=0 > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ofiwg Digest, Vol 93, Issue 4 > ************************************ > > _______________________________________________ ofiwg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg
