[ofa-general] RE: tcp/rdma port unification patch in librdmacm
Steve Wise
swise at opengridcomputing.com
Wed Mar 11 08:09:16 PDT 2009
Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Sean Hefty wrote:
>> I thought about that, but didn't know whether it was in use. I agree
>> that
>> existing apps shouldn't break. (I was thinking more along the lines
>> of adding a
>> new call that would make this behavior explicit, but haven't taken
>> the time to
>> really study the details.)
>>
>
> Yes, lets not break existing apps such as stgt. I'm fine with adding
> new call.
>
Or maybe map PS_TCP port space to the be the unified space, and have a
new PS_RDMA or PS_IB port space that doesn't?
>> Does anyone know if a kernel patch to fix this has been accepted
>> directly into
>> the distros?
>>
>
> Sorry, but I wasn't sure to follow what you mean by "fix this" ... did
> you refer to kernel apps that don't use different port numbers for
> their TCP vs RDMA listeners, or you referred to the rdma_cm patch
> which is not merged into mainline?
>
I haven't pushed to get a distro to pull in the cma patch. I assumed
since it wasn't destined for upstream, that they wouldn't accept it.
>> Also, does anything keep MPI from doing exactly what we're discussing
>> in the
>> application as part of using the librdmacm? (Besides having all apps
>> duplicate this
>>
> no, nothing prevents an app to open/bound a socket as long as the port
> is available and its ulimit allow to open the number of sockets it
> wants. This actually somehow brings me back to square one with regard
> to the actual problem, so I'll ask you guys a question as a reply to
> earlier post on this thread...
>
Nothing prevents this, but why force OpenMPI, MVAPICH2, HP MPI, Intel
MPI, and Scali MPI to all do this?
Steve.
More information about the general
mailing list