[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/17] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() for each HW
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

> IPoIB is more than just an ULP. It's a spec. And it's very IB
> specific. It will only work with OPA because OPA is imitating IB.
> To run it on another fabric, you would need more than just to make
> it work. If the new fabric doesn't have a broadcast group, or has
> multicast registration like IB does, you need the equivalent of
> IBTA, whatever that may be for this new fabric, buy in on the
> pre-defined multicast groups and you might need firmware support in
> the switches.

It feels like the 'cap_ib_addressing' or whatever we call it captures
this very well. The IPoIB RFC is very much concerned with GID's and
MGID's and broadly requires the IBA addressing
scheme. cap_ib_addressing asserts the port uses that scheme.

We wouldn't accept patches to IPoIB to add a new addressing scheme
without seeing proper diligence to the standards work.

Looking away from the stadards, using cap_XX seems very sane: We are
building a well defined system of invarients, You can't call into the
sa functions if cap_sa is not set, you can't call into the mcast
functions if cap_mcast is not set, you can't form a AH from IB
GIDs/MGID/LID without cap_ib_addressing.

I makes so much sense for the ULP to directly require the needed cap's
for the kernel APIs it intends to call, or not use the RDMA port at

> > We can see how this might work in future, lets say OPAv2 *requires* the
> > 32 bit LID, for that case cap_ib_address = 0 cap_opa_address = 1. If
> > we don't update IPoIB and it uses the tests from above then it
> > immediately, and correctly, stops running on those OPAv2 devices.
> >
> > Once patched to support cap_op_address then it will begin working
> > again. That seems very sane..
> It is very sane from an implementation standpoint, but from the larger
> interoperability standpoint, you need that spec to be extended to the
> new fabric simultaneously.

I liked the OPAv2 hypothetical because it doesn't actually touch the
IPoIB spec. IPoIB spec has little to say about LIDs or LRHs it works
entirely at the GID/MGID/GRH level.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-10 22:41    [W:0.107 / U:6.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site