> From: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 5:28 PM > To: Wan, Kaike <kaike.wan@xxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Rimmer, Todd <todd.rimmer@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] A rendezvous module > > On 3/19/2021 4:59 PM, Wan, Kaike wrote: > >> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 4:55 PM > >> To: Rimmer, Todd <todd.rimmer@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >> Wan, Oh, there is lots of stuff in UCX, I'm not surprised you > >> similarities to what PSM did since psm/libfabric/ucx are all solving the > same problems. > >> > >>>> rv seems to completely destroy alot of the HPC performance offloads > >>>> that vendors are layering on RC QPs > >> > >>> Different vendors have different approaches to performance and chose > >>> different design trade-offs. > >> > >> That isn't my point, by limiting the usability you also restrict the > >> drivers where this would meaningfully be useful. > >> > >> So far we now know that it is not useful for mlx5 or hfi1, that > >> leaves only hns unknown and still in the HPC arena. > > [Wan, Kaike] Incorrect. The rv module works with hfi1. > > Interesting. I was thinking the opposite. So what's the benefit? When would > someone want to do that? [Wan, Kaike] This is only because rv works with the generic Verbs interface and hfi1 happens to be one of the devices that implements the Verbs interface. > > -Denny
