> I guess what I'm objecting to is hard coding mlx4.
> I was trying to think of a way that would allow other HCAs
> to support the block loopback option in the future.
> It looks like ipoib sets IB_QP_CREATE_BLOCK_MULTICAST_LOOPBACK
> for kernel QPs but this isn't defined in libibverbs yet.
If the
> To be precise, the bit avoids recieving multicast packets by the QP that
> --sent-- it, not by other QPs subscribed to that group on the same
> node/hca, the patch change-log even states that "Inter QP multicast
> packets on the relevant HCA will still be delivered". You can test that
> with two
Hefty, Sean wrote:
One could argue that this change is reasonable regardless of the OFED kernel
patch. It avoids sending multicast traffic when the destination is local. The
main drawback beyond the extra code is that a node can't send a multicast
message to itself, with the intent that remo
Ralph Campbell wrote:
I guess what I'm objecting to is hard coding mlx4. I was trying to think of a
way that would allow other HCAs to support the block loopback option in the
future. It looks like ipoib sets IB_QP_CREATE_BLOCK_MULTICAST_LOOPBACK for
kernel QPs but this isn't defined in libibv
I guess what I'm objecting to is hard coding mlx4.
I was trying to think of a way that would allow other HCAs
to support the block loopback option in the future.
It looks like ipoib sets IB_QP_CREATE_BLOCK_MULTICAST_LOOPBACK
for kernel QPs but this isn't defined in libibverbs yet.
It seems reasonab
> Is there a way to make it HCA neutral?
> Would it require extending the libibverbs API to set the option?
I'm not quite following what the problem is. ACM doesn't care what HCA is
used. It does adjust how it handles loopback addresses based on whether some
value is written in an HCA/OFED 1.5
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:54 -0800, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > This seems to introduce an HCA specific dependency.
>
> yep :( This is why ACM just handles it rather than exposing any sort of
> option to a user.
>
> > Isn't ibacm supposed to work with different HCAs?
>
> It does and still will, even
> This seems to introduce an HCA specific dependency.
yep :( This is why ACM just handles it rather than exposing any sort of option
to a user.
> Isn't ibacm supposed to work with different HCAs?
It does and still will, even in a mixed environment.
One could argue that this change is reasonab
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:15 -0800, Hefty, Sean wrote:
...
> @@ -2620,6 +2663,12 @@ static void acm_set_options(void)
> }
>
> fclose(f);
> +
> + if (!(f = fopen("/sys/module/mlx4_core/parameters/block_loopback",
> "r")))
> + return;
> +
> + fscanf(f, "%d", &loopbac
