Roland Dreier <rol...@kernel.org> wrote: Jim Schutt <jasc...@sandia.gov> wrote: >> no good reason to insist that the VL usage is the same for both >> interswitch links, and switch-CA links. Do I need to change this?
> I don't think changing this is a high priority, since it's a pretty small > slice of the world, and QoS on the edge links probably is important > to an even smaller slice, but IMHO it would be better to give QoS to > HCAs that only support 4 VLs by using a different SL2VL table for links to > CAs. Jim, AFAIK, the way opensm applies an SL-to-VL mapping specification (e.g dictated by the admin or maybe your routing engine) on a specific link is by modulation on the number of active VLs for that link - e.g say the ID mapping was required and there are two VLs for that link, so we'll have SL-to-VL of 0->0 1->1 2->0 3->1 and so on. So in that respect, I wasn't sure what's the change here for you. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
