This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On Jul 12, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Don Kerr wrote:
>> - So if you want to simply eliminate the flow control, choose M high
>> enough (or just a total number of receive buffers to post to the SRQ)
>> that you won't ever run out of resources and you should see some
>> speedup from lack of flow control. This obviously mainly helps apps
>> with lots of small messages; it may not help in many other cases.
> Is there any distinction by the size of the message. If the "M"
> parameter is set high does the openib btl post this many recv buffers
> for the SRQ on both QPs? Or are SRQs only created on one of the QPs?
Keep in mind that the SRQs are only for send/receive messages, not
Each receive buffer has a max size (the eager limit, IIRC). So if
the message is larger than that, we'll fragment per the pipeline
protocol, possibly subject to doing RDMA if the message is large
enough, yadda yadda yadda. More specifically, the size of the buffer
is not dependent upon an individual message that is being sent or
received (since they're pre-posted -- we have no idea what the
message sizes will be).
As for whether the SRQ is on both QP's, this is a Galen/George/Gleb