Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB_CM: Limit the MRA timeout > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > For remote cm timeout and service timeout this makes sense - they seem > > currently mostly taken out of the blue on implementations I've seen. > > > > But since the packet lifetime comes from the SM, it actually has a chance > > to reflect some knowledge about the network topology. > > And since we haven't see any practical issues with packet life time yet - > > maybe a different paremeter for that, with a higher limit? > > I guess the question is how much do we trust the timeout values sent in a CM > MAD. (It's hard for me to imagine a network that requires a 2.5 hour packet > life time. IB to space?) Having separate timeout values may make sense, but > my > expectation is for the remote cm timeout and service timeout values to be > greater than the packet life time. > > If we go with separate values, then is there a reason not to have separate > defaults for each one? My preference is to try to limit the number of values.
The way I see it, we trust e.g. the SRP target anyway. So I'm not sure there's much value in range-checking everything. The only reason we are touching this is because we see a target reporting an obviously broken service timeout value in MRA - in the hours range. So, maybe start small and just use Ishai's patch (with default set to several seconds or so), and wait with the fix till a problem surfaces? -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
