From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 10:27:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 10:27:57 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62]:48283 "EHLO sccrmhc02.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 10:27:56 -0400 From: "Ashok Raj" To: "Alan Cox" , "Pete Zaitcev" Cc: , , , , Subject: RE: InfiniBand BOF @ LSM - topics of interest Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 07:27:36 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org InfiniBand specifications provides tools to implement QoS. Service Level (SL) and Virtual Lane (VL) managed by the SM determines how the SL->VL mapping is performed these attributes are carried in the local routing headers when a node sources the packet to the fabric. The SL is not modified when the packet crosses subnets. IB spec has more details on how these could be used. There is a separate congestion control work group in IBTA that is trying to address these issue, but i have not see that very active. Possibly since the update to 1.0a is due in very short time. -----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Alan Cox Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:29 AM To: Pete Zaitcev Cc: Alan Cox; Tony.P.Lee@nokia.com; lmb@suse.de; woody@co.intel.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; zaitcev@redhat.com Subject: Re: InfiniBand BOF @ LSM - topics of interest > The thing about Infiniband is that its scope is so great. > If you consider Infiniband was only a glorified PCI with serial > connector, the congestion control is not an issue. Credits Congestion control is always an issue 8 > are quite sufficient to provide per link flow control, and > everything would work nicely with a couple of switches. > Such was the original plan, anyways, but somehow cluster > ninjas managed to hijack the spec and we have the rabid > overengineering running amok. In fact, they ran so far > that Intel jumped ship and created PCI Express, and we > have discussions about congestion control. Sad, really... My interest is in the question "does infiniband have usable congestion control for tcp/clustering/networking". I don't actually care if it doesn't and I'd rather have most congestion control in software anyway. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/