[ofw] How to block waiting for a CQE?

[Diego Guella]

----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Tzachi Dar" <tzachid at mellanox.co.il>
>To: "Diego Guella" <diego.guella at sircomtech.com>; <ofw at lists.openfabrics.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:08 PM
>Subject: RE: [ofw] How to block waiting for a CQE?
>

>Hi,
>
>You can get the example doing an svn co from the addresses:
>svn://openib.tc.cornell.edu/gen1/trunk
Thanks, I got the example and looked at it. But unfortunately I still have some doubts :)
Please see below.

>From the practical stand point you can use cl_waitobj_wait_on in as well
>as WaitForSingleObject.
>To work more correctly from the standpoint of software engneering you
>should call cl_waitobj_wait_on. This is because this is the "standard"
>way that ibal is using.
>If you look at the implmentation you will see that cl_waitobj_wait_on is
>being implmeanted by WaitForSingleObject.
Ok, I supposed that. I asked because in the future I could have the need to WaitForMultipleObjects.


>As for the code that you have suggested. I don't think that it will
>work.
>The main reason is that you don't do arm before you wait for
>notification.
>I guess that this might work since after the arming is done, you will
>get an event
>that will live your event signaled. This will trigger another loop of
>arming and polling
>which should work but is probably not needed.

This is the simplified pseudo-code from tools\perftests\user\send_bw\send_bw.c:
-----
// Initialization
ib_status = ib_rearm_cq( ctx->scq, FALSE );

// Loop
while (1) {
 cl_status = cl_waitobj_wait_on( ctx->cq_waitobj, EVENT_NO_TIMEOUT, TRUE );

 do {
  ib_status = ib_poll_cq(ctx->scq, &p_wc_free, &p_wc_done);
  if (ib_status == IB_SUCCESS)
   handle_stuff();
 } while (ib_status == IB_SUCCESS );

// <--- What happens if a new CQE appears here?

 ib_status = ib_rearm_cq( ctx->scq, FALSE );
}

-----

I think that if a new CQE appears in the place I indicated, I will have to wait until another CQE will appear, then I will find 2 
CQE in the inner poll loop.
Am I misunderstanding something?


Thanks,
Diego