Hi Arlin, On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:51, Arlin Davis wrote: > Arlin Davis wrote: > > > Aniruddha Bohra wrote: > > > >> I am not sure, but arent uCM and uAT simply for connection > >> establishment? > >> > > Yes, but they also set up many of the transfer attributes of the > > connected QP. The uCM/uAT version uses path_records from the SA query > > but the socket_CM version just builds them by hand similiar to the way > > ibv_rc_pingpong does. You would have to look at the > > pathrecord->pktlifetime to see the actual timeout value being used. > > > Ok, I added some debug and it looks like the path record returned from > uAT looks suspect. Here are the results from tuAT and opensm running on > my cluster. Path record pktlife is 0 (uCM adds 1) so the ACK timeout > value for this connection will be very short. > > path_comp_handler: ctxt 0x525fa0, req_id 90 rec_num 1 > path_comp_handler: SRC GID subnet fe80000000000000 id 0002c9020000409d > path_comp_handler: DST GID subnet fe80000000000000 id 0002c90200004071 > path_comp_handler: slid 5 dlid 2 mtu 120203(2) pktlife > 0(0) <<< ??? > path_comp_handler: hops 0 npaths 0 pkey ffff tclass 0 rate > 0(0) <<< ??? > > Hal, can you take a look at uAT and see if the copy to user space is > working correctly.
Just want to clarify what I should be looking for: So you suspect pktlife and rate being bad (and the rest of the SA PR look OK) ? Is OpenSM being used in Aniruddha's subnet ? -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
