On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:03:58 -0400 Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 12:50, Sean Hefty wrote: > > > Another alternative is to assume it is a receive if it is not a send is > > > not matched. > > > > I think we have other issues with the completion handling as well. > > Since we use a single CQ for both QPs, I think that we need to search > > the send_posted_mad_list to find the corresponding completion. > > We cannot assume that the completion matches with the request at the > > head of the list. > > > > This appears to be broken in the non-error case as well. > > Right. > > > I will happily create a patch to fix these issues. > > Just wondering... will the patch change to a CQ/QP or leave it as 1 > CQ/port ? (BTW, there was a patch a long time ago on this which was lost > in the shuffle. Sorry). I was just looking at the other error handling cases to see what would make the most sense. At a minimum, I think that we want two send_posted_mad_list's, one per QP, in order to recover from errors on one of the QPs. Having a single list makes it more complicated to restart a QP. >From a software viewpoint, I think that 2 CQs per QP, for a total of 4 per port, >would make the code the simplest, and probably allow for the most optimization wrt >completion processing and QP size. (My assumption is that the memory cost for 4 >smaller CQs would basically be the same as 1 or 2 larger CQs.) Of course, we can always use a single CQ and just set the wr_id to something that can differentiate between which send/receive queue we're trying to process. - Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
