| Eli Dorfman (Voltaire) |
| Sep 30, 1:33 am 2009 |
| Ingo Molnar | Re: [ofa-general] Re: [GIT PULL] please pull ummunotify
Performance events filtering is being worked on and now with the proper
non-DoS limit you've added you can lose events too, dont you? So it's
all a question of how much buffering to add - and with perf events too
Nobody suggested details for any redesign yet (so far it seems like a
perfect match, to me at least) so i'm wondering what messup you are
Agreed.
I test-pulled this code and had a look at it.
I think this could be done in a simpler, less limited, more generic,
more ...
| Sep 30, 2:44 am 2009 |
| Jason Gunthorpe | Re: [ofa-general] Re: [GIT PULL] please pull ummunotify
No, the ummunotify does not loose events, that is the fundamental
difference between it and all tracing schemes.
Every call to ibv_reg_mr is paired with a call to ummunotify to create
a matching watcher. Both calls allocate some kernel memory, if one
fails the entire operation fails and userspace can do whatever it does
on memory allocation failure.
After that point the scheme is perfectly lossless.
Performance event filtering would use the same kind of kernel memory,
call ibv_reg_mr, ...
| Sep 30, 9:02 am 2009 |
| Roland Dreier | Re: [ofa-general] Re: [GIT PULL] please pull ummunotify
> Performance events filtering is being worked on and now with the proper
> non-DoS limit you've added you can lose events too, dont you? So it's
> all a question of how much buffering to add - and with perf events too
> you can buffer arbitrary large amount of events.
No, the idea for non-DoS for ummunotify is that we would limit the
number of regions the application can register; so an application might
hit the limit up front but no runtime loss of events once a region was
registered ...
| Sep 30, 10:06 am 2009 |
| Tziporet Koren |
| Sep 29, 9:41 pm 2009 |
| Hal Rosenstock |
| Sep 30, 6:40 am 2009 |
| Hal Rosenstock |
| Sep 30, 6:44 am 2009 |
| Or Gerlitz |
| Sep 29, 9:04 pm 2009 |
| Jeff Becker | Re: [ofa-general] This list expires... tomorrow?
No problem. I'm about to "pull the trigger". Shortly after you see this
message, you will be unsubscribed from this list, and future posts to
the list will be discarded with an auto-reply note redirecting you to
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org. The list will continue to exist so that its
archives can be accessible.
OK - here goes...
-jeff
10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, :-)
_______________________________________________
general mailing ...
| Sep 30, 9:48 am 2009 |
| Sufficool, Stanley |
| Sep 30, 8:46 am 2009 |
| Jeff Becker | Re: [ofa-general] This list expires... tomorrow?
From tomorrow on, the general list will continue to exist with
searchable archives, but no new messages will be accepted. People who
try to send to general will be told to send to
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org instead. If someone posted a patch to general
before the switch and it hasn't been accepted, they can repost to the
new list. Hope this works for everyone. Thanks
-jeff
_______________________________________________
general mailing ...
| Sep 29, 5:40 pm 2009 |
| Eli Cohen | [ofa-general] [PATCH] mlx4: remove limitation on LSO hea ...
Current code has a limitation as for the size of an LSO header not allowed to
cross a 64 byte boundary. This patch removes this limitation by setting the WQE
RR for large headers thus allowing LSO headers of any size. The extra buffer
reserved for MLX4_IB_QP_LSO QPs has been doubled, from 64 to 128 bytes,
assuming this is reasonable upper limit to header length.
Also, this patch will cause IB_DEVICE_UD_TSO to be set only of FW versions that
set MLX4_DEV_CAP_FLAG_BLH; e.g. FW version 2.6.000 and ...
| Sep 30, 2:07 am 2009 |
| Jon Mason |
| Sep 30, 7:37 am 2009 |
| Christoph Lameter |
| Sep 30, 7:27 am 2009 |
| Vladimir Sokolovsky ... | [ofa-general] ofa_1_5_kernel 20090930-0200 daily build status
This email was generated automatically, please do not reply
git_url: git://git.openfabrics.org/ofed_1_5/linux-2.6.git
git_branch: ofed_kernel_1_5
Common build parameters:
Passed:
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.19
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.18
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.21.1
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.24
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.26
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.22
Passed on i686 with linux-2.6.27
Passed on x86_64 with linux-2.6.16.60-0.21-smp
Passed on x86_64 with ...
| Sep 30, 3:13 am 2009 |
| Hal Rosenstock | [ofa-general] [PATCH] opensm/osm_sa_lft_record.c: In lft ...
Signed-off-by: Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>
---
diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_sa_lft_record.c b/opensm/opensm/osm_sa_lft_record.c
index d092129..828b277 100644
--- a/opensm/opensm/osm_sa_lft_record.c
+++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_sa_lft_record.c
@@ -99,8 +99,12 @@ static ib_api_status_t lftr_rcv_new_lftr(IN osm_sa_t * sa,
p_rec_item->rec.block_num = cl_hton16(block);
/* copy the lft block */
- osm_switch_get_lft_block(p_sw, block, p_rec_item->rec.lft);
-
+ if ...
| Sep 30, 8:43 am 2009 |
| general-bounces |
| Sep 30, 10:24 am 2009 |
