On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 03:04:39PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
I guess you mean just implement XRC without allowing multiple
processes to share an XRC domain? That actually seems like a sensible
thing to implement as well...
This is part of the current XRC implementation --
I guess you mean just implement XRC without allowing multiple
processes to share an XRC domain? That actually seems like a sensible
thing to implement as well...
This is part of the current XRC implementation -- just give -1 as the fd
value
in ibv_open_xrc_domain().
I *think*
On Friday 18 January 2008 03:25, Roland Dreier wrote:
I guess you mean just implement XRC without allowing multiple
processes to share an XRC domain? That actually seems like a sensible
thing to implement as well...
This is part of the current XRC implementation -- just give -1 as
On Friday 18 January 2008 03:25, Roland Dreier wrote:
I guess you mean just implement XRC without allowing multiple
processes to share an XRC domain? That actually seems like a sensible
thing to implement as well...
This is part of the current XRC implementation -- just give -1 as the fd
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:35:39PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
Roland, you said that XRC API is ugly, are you going to push it upstream
in its present form?
That's a good question. Since there is no 'present form' for XRC as
far as I can tell, it's hard to make a definitive answer.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but in my opinion if someone wants to run
MPI job so huge that XRC absolutely has to be used to be able to actually
finish it then he should seriously rethink his application design.
But where do you think the crossover is where XRC starts to help MPI?
In
Roland, you said that XRC API is ugly, are you going to push it upstream
in its present form?
That's a good question. Since there is no 'present form' for XRC as
far as I can tell, it's hard to make a definitive answer. Certainly I
haven't made up my mind in advance one way or another. In
When we started OFED we decided to enable new features that can be in
lower stability level, in case they do not harm the overall stability of
the OFED release.
I think XRC fulfill this criteria.
XRC changes the verbs interfaces and code. It increases the risk of
instability. Changes to IPoIB
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:02:12PM -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
I would rather see OFED pull code from upstream with patches added
on only for backports and fixes.
This is very important point actually. Is there any guaranty that XRC
API will be pushed to the kernel as is? What if kernel
