-----"Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ----- >To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Krishnamraju Eraparaju" ><krishna2@xxxxxxxxxxx> >From: "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx> >Date: 05/29/2020 05:21PM >Cc: "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@xxxxxxxxx>, "mkalderon@xxxxxxxxxxx" ><mkalderon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "aelior@xxxxxxxxxxx" <aelior@xxxxxxxxxxx>, >"dledford@xxxxxxxxxx" <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>, "jgg@xxxxxxxx" ><jgg@xxxxxxxx>, "linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" ><linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bharat@xxxxxxxxxxx" ><bharat@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "nirranjan@xxxxxxxxxxx" <nirranjan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] RDMA/siw: >Experimental e2e negotiation of GSO usage. > >> Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] RDMA/siw: Experimental e2e >negotiation >> of GSO usage. >> >> >> -----"Krishnamraju Eraparaju" <krishna2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ----- >> >> >To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >From: "Krishnamraju Eraparaju" <krishna2@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >Date: 05/15/2020 03:58PM >> >Cc: faisal.latif@xxxxxxxxx, shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx, >> >mkalderon@xxxxxxxxxxx, aelior@xxxxxxxxxxx, dledford@xxxxxxxxxx, >> >jgg@xxxxxxxx, linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bharat@xxxxxxxxxxx, >> >nirranjan@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] RDMA/siw: >> >Experimental e2e negotiation of GSO usage. >> > >> >Here is the rough prototype of iwpmd approach(only kernel part). >> >Please take a look. >> >> >> This indeed looks like a possible solution, which would not affect >the wire >> protocol. >> >> Before we move ahead with that story in any direction, I would >really really >> appreciate to hear what other iWarp vendors have to say. >> >> 0) would other vendors care about better performance >> in a mixed hardware/software iwarp setting? >> >> 1) what are the capabilities of other adapters in that >> respect, e.g. what is the maximum FPDU length it >> can process? >> >> 2) would other adapters be able to send larger FPDUs >> than MTU size? >> >> 3) what would be the preferred solution - using spare >> MPA protocol bits to signal capabilities or >> extending the proprietary iwarp port mapper with that >> functionality? >> >> Thanks very much! >> Bernard. >> > >Hi Bernard - If we receive larger FPDU than MTU its handled in >software >and therefore is a hit on perf. We do support jumbo packets but we do >not >transmit FPDUs greater than MTU size. I recommend we do not add >unspec'd bits into the MPA protocol for gso negotiation. netlink >based >approach or iwpmd sounds more reasonable. > >Hope this helps. > It does! Many thanks, Bernard. >Shiraz > >
