On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:17:57PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:08:17PM +0300, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote:
> > >> 5. ...?
> > >>
> > > What about moving posting of receive buffers into main thread. With
> > > SRQ it is easy: don't post anything in CPC thread. Main thread will
> > > prepost buffers automatically after first fragment received on the
> > > endpoint (in btl_openib_handle_incoming()).
> > It still doesn't guaranty that we will not see RNR (as I understand we
> > trying to resolve this problem for iwarp?!)
> I don't think that iwarp has SRQ at all. And if it has then it should
While Chelsio does not currently have an adapter that has SRQs, there are
some other iWARP vendors that do have them.
> have HW flow control for it too. I don't see what advantage SRQ without
> flow control can provide over PPRQ.
Technically, this is not flow control, it is a retransmit. iWARP can use
the HW TCP stack to retransmit, but it will not have the "retransmit
forever" ability that setting rnr_retry to 7 has for IB.
> > So this solution will cost 1 buffer on each srq ... sounds acceptable
> > for me. But I don't see too much
> > difference compared to #1, as I understand we anyway will be need the
> > pipe for communication with main thread.
> > so why don't use #1 ?
> What communication? No communication at all. Just don't prepost buffers
> to SRQ during connection establishment. Problem solved (only for SRQ of
iWARP needs preposted recv buffers (or it will drop the connection). So
this isn't a good option.
> devel mailing list