>Actually, if a hardware implementation provided the same performance >(in this case latency) by polling on a CQ as one where polling on >memory was guaranteed to work, the customer may actually prefer the >"standard" implementation.
Polling on a CQ involves a function call, synchronization to the CQ, and formatting a structure to return to the user. I don't see this ever being faster than polling memory. If the data is received in order, there's no additional delay between writing the data and polling on memory. A CQ entry requires a separate write, plus the overhead mentioned above. Even if the data arrived out of order, only the last byte needs to be deferred. Writing that byte shouldn't be any slower than writing a CQ entry. - Sean _______________________________________________ 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
