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.
Yeah the non-blocking interface has some fault tolerance benefits as
Brian mentioned. We are not quite far enough along to use it yet. I
think that we might need to extend it a bit, but I haven't looked at
it in enough detail to say how exactly at the moment.
So I would say for the moment leave it out, but leave a note in there
that a non-blocking interface may be added in the future to aid in
network path detection and recovery. Or something like that.
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Brian Barrett wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Friedley wrote:
>> Tim Prins wrote:
>>> I am working on implementing the RSL. Part of this is changing the
>>> to use the process attribute system in the RSL. I had designed this
>>> system to to include a non-blocking interface.
>>> However, I have looked again and noticed that nobody is using the
>>> non-blocking modex receive. Because of this I am inclined to not
>>> such an interface in the RSL.
>> hmm, would using a non-blocking modex recv improve performance in any
>> way, or have any other useful impacts? If so, I would use it.
> No, no performance advantages.
> It was originally intended to allow a BTL to subscribe to modex
> information for a peer, and receive updates when that peer's
> information changed (say, a NIC died mid-run or was restarted mid-
> run). Clearly, we haven't gone down that path at this time.
> devel mailing list