Brian wrote, >I think there are other problems with the verbs interface that would still >make MPI implementers twitch (some of which are in the slides Jeff sent out >to begin this discussion). But I certainly wouldn't say no to a real set of >tag matching primitives. Of course, that opens a whole can of worms that >I'm not sure OFED is ready to deal with.
>It also may or may not solve the memory registration problem. If the memory >in the matching verb still had to be registered, we haven't solved the >problem that started this discussion. So the verb would have to also handle >memory registration, which seems to go against the general "OFA way". I think if we did such a thing, we could implement a set of tag-matching primitives (similar to MX or PSM) that are kind of a separate library from the OFA RDMA verbs, just like PSM for Qlogic is a separate library and not part of the OFA verbs. Just like with MX and PSM, I think the registration can be done my the tag-matching driver (like PSM or MX do) and not require MPI to do it. Think of this as "the MPI tag-matching interface" library for OFA. However, this would only completely solve your problem and complexity of using the OFA RDMA verbs if all the hardware vendors implemented tag-matching in their NICs. Seems like if they want to better support MPIs, that is what they would do and then MPIs would only have to use the simple tag-matching primitives and would not have to worry about things like memory registration caches and such. Anyway, I think it is an interesting idea worth perusing with the IHVs as the long term solution to most of the issues that Jeff raised in Sonoma. woody _______________________________________________ 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
