> > > When transmitter and receiver is enabled to do so, as I described in > > overview section of Documentation, it helps > > > (a) to avoid retransmission - improves network utilization > > > (b) reduces latency due to timers not kicking in. > > > > Yes those benefits are clear. I see no reason why it shouldn't always > > be > > done is my point. Application shouldn't have to care and there is no > > need to make this an additional flag. > > The app cares when data from write 2 can be written at the target before data > from write 1, especially if the writes target the same memory buffers. (At least I > think this is the intent of exposing this to the app.) > > Note that the provider can always provide stronger ordering than what the app > needs. My understanding is that IB or IW apps should never assume ingress write or read response data is _placed_ into local memory in the order it was transmitted from the peer. The only guarantee is that the _indication_ of the arrived data preserve the sender's ordering. However, I'm thinking that there are applications out there that spin polling local memory that is the target of a write or read response and assume the last bit of that memory will get written last... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
