The hack to use a socket and bind it to claim the port was just for
demostrating the idea. The correct solution, IMO, is to enhance the
core low level 4-tuple allocation services to be more generic (eg: not
be tied to a struct sock). Then the host tcp stack and the host rdma
stack can
From: Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:01:07 -0700
The hack to use a socket and bind it to claim the port was just for
demostrating the idea. The correct solution, IMO, is to enhance the
core low level 4-tuple allocation services to be more generic (eg: not
be
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Steve Wise wrote:
The correct solution, IMO, is to enhance the core low level 4-tuple
allocation services to be more generic (eg: not be tied to a struct
sock). Then the host tcp stack and the host rdma stack can allocate
TCP/iWARP ports/4tuples from this common
David Miller wrote:
From: Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700
Steve Wise wrote:
Any more comments?
Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using a
struct socket?
How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether? I am not at all
Sorry for the long latency, I was at the beach all last week.
And direct data placement really does give you a factor of two at
least, because otherwise you're stuck receiving the data in one
buffer, looking at some of the data at least, and then figuring out
where to copy it. And
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:38:07 -0700
It seems that the NIC would also have to look into a TCP stream (and
handle out of order segments etc) to find message boundaries for this
to be equivalent to what an RDMA NIC does.
It would work for data that
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:16:54 -0700
And direct data placement really does give you a factor of two at
least, because otherwise you're stuck receiving the data in one
buffer, looking at some of the data at least, and then figuring out
where to copy it.
[TSO / LRO discussion snipped -- it's not the main point so no sense
spending energy arguing about it]
Just be realistic and accept that RDMA is a point in time solution,
and like any other such technology takes flexibility away from users.
Horizontal scaling of cpus up to huge arity
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:23:01 -0700
Also, looking at the complexity and bug-fixing effort that go into
making TSO work vs the really pretty small gain it gives also makes
part of me wonder whether the noble proclamations about
maintainability are always
Isn't RDMA _part_ of the software net stack within Linux?
It very much is not so.
This is just nit-picking. You can draw the boundary of the software
net stack wherever you want, but I think Sean's point was just that
RDMA drivers already are part of Linux, and we all want them to get
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:52:39 -0700
When using RDMA you lose the capability to do packet shaping,
classification, and all the other wonderful networking facilities
you've grown to love and use over the years.
Same thing with TSO and LRO and who
When using RDMA you lose the capability to do packet shaping,
classification, and all the other wonderful networking facilities
you've grown to love and use over the years.
Same thing with TSO and LRO and who knows what else.
Not true at all. Full classification and
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:31:07 -0700
When using RDMA you lose the capability to do packet shaping,
classification, and all the other wonderful networking facilities
you've grown to love and use over the years.
Same thing with TSO
This is also a series of falsehoods. All packet filtering,
queue management, and packet scheduling facilities work perfectly
fine and as designed with both LRO and TSO.
I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps broken was too strong a word to use,
but if you pass a huge segment to a NIC with TSO,
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 22:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[...snip...]
I think removing the RDMA stack is the wrong thing to do, and you
shouldn't just threaten to yank entire subsystems because you don't like
the technology. Lets keep this constructive, can we? RDMA should get
the
From: Tom Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:43:11 -0500
Isn't RDMA _part_ of the software net stack within Linux?
It very much is not so.
When using RDMA you lose the capability to do packet shaping,
classification, and all the other wonderful networking facilities
you've
David Miller wrote:
From: Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700
Steve Wise wrote:
Any more comments?
Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using a
struct socket?
How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether? I am not at all
Steve Wise wrote:
David Miller wrote:
From: Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700
Steve Wise wrote:
Any more comments?
Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using
a struct socket?
How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether?
Needing to reach out of the RDMA sandbox and reserve net stack
resources away from itself travels a path we've consistently avoided.
Where did the idea of an RDMA sandbox come from? Obviously no one
disagrees with keeping things clean and maintainable, but the idea
that RDMA is a
Steve Wise wrote:
Any more comments?
Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using a
struct socket?
- Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
From: Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700
Steve Wise wrote:
Any more comments?
Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using a
struct socket?
How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether? I am not at all
kidding. If you guys
How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether? I am not at all
kidding. If you guys can't stay in your sand box and need to cause
problems for the normal network stack, it's unacceptable. We were
told all along the if RDMA went into the tree none of this kind of
stuff would be an issue.
22 matches
Mail list logo
