Steve Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 14:29 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Thanks for following up on this, on the surface looks good.
>> I'm busy at the moment, but a quick question:
>>
>> Quoting r. Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> +static void pp_wait_for_done(struct pingpong_context *ctx)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ibv_wc wc;
>>> + int ne;
>>> +
>>> + do {
>>> + usleep(500);
>>> + ne = ibv_poll_cq(ctx->rcq, 1, &wc);
>>> + } while (ne == 0);
>> I wander whether we can get rid of the rcq and an extra send at the
>> end by simply closing the QP, and ignoring the possible completion with error
>> for the last round. I think this would be a nice simplification.
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> For IWARP, the ULP must quiesce the QP before moving it to CLOSING (ie
> before doing an rdma_disconnect()). By quiesce, I mean make sure there
> are no outstanding SQ WRs and no outstanding RDMA reads in progress.
> That's why there is this message exchange at the end of the test.
>
> For instance, in the bi-directional bandwidth tests, one side could
> finish the test and issue an rdma_disconnect() while the other end still
> has pending rdma writes. This is an error condition in iWARP. So they
> sync up at the end with a message exchange before disconnecting.
>
> Make sense?
Steve,
Is it necessary to handle this error condition for measuring bandwidth ?
Once the bandwidth computation is done, let the application terminate, which
should anyway flush the queues.
Thanks,
Pradipta Kumar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>
>
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
