Roland Dreier wrote: > > Can we please go on with this patch? We would like to see it in the next > kernel. > > I still don't get why this is important to you. Is there a concrete > example of a situation where this actually makes a measurable difference? > > We need some justification for adding this locking complexity beyond "it > doesn't hurt." (And also of course we need it fixed so there aren't races) > > - R. > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > Hi, OK. Here is an example that was viewed in our tests. One IPoIB host (client) sends a stream of multicast packets to another IPoIB host (server). SM takeover event takes place during traffic and as a result multicast info is flushed and there is a need to rejoin by hosts. Without the patch there is a chance (which according to our experience is a very big chance) that the request to rejoin will be to the old SM and only after a retry join completes successfully. This takes too long and the patch solves it.
I hope that this is convincing enough for you because for us it is important that a recovery from a failure will be as quick as possible. thanks MoniS _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
