> From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:06 AM > > Fab Tillier wrote: > >> From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:22 AM > >> > >>>> although we would prefer that it wouldn't block if possible > >>> > >>> mmm. All the current memory registration verbs both user and kernel > >>> are blocking, is it an issue for you? > >>> > >> > >> If you need to do memory registrations in a context where blocking is > >> not an option then you really need FMR work requests as in RDMAC and > >> InfiniBand 1.2 verbs. > > > > No. The blocking semantics of memory registration APIs is a > > deliberate design choice and not a limitation of the > > hardware. It is possible (though more > > complicated) to make the API asynchronous. No existing IB > > stack to date has ever done so, however. > > > > - Fab > > If asynchronous memory registration (via work request) is > such a bad idea then why is it part of both the RDMAC iWARP > and InfiniBand 1.2 verb specifications?
You misunderstood me. I didn't say anything about FMR being a bad idea, just that regular MRs could be made to work in a non-blocking manner. Non-blocking calls don't require FMR, it could be done without. - Fab _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general