δΊ 2013-9-25 1:59, Michael R. Hines ει:
On 09/04/2013 04:10 AM, Frank Yang wrote:
On 2013-9-3 13:03, Lei Li wrote:
Hi Frank,
I failed to apply this patch. Please make sure to use
git-send-email, otherwise
it's a little hard to review. :)
On 08/30/2013 08:39 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
When several
On 09/04/2013 04:10 AM, Frank Yang wrote:
On 2013-9-3 13:03, Lei Li wrote:
Hi Frank,
I failed to apply this patch. Please make sure to use git-send-email, otherwise
it's a little hard to review. :)
On 08/30/2013 08:39 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
When several VMs migrate with RDMA at the same time,
> On 2013-9-3 13:03, Lei Li wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> I failed to apply this patch. Please make sure to use git-send-email,
>> otherwise
>> it's a little hard to review. :)
>>
>> On 08/30/2013 08:39 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
>>> When several VMs migrate with RDMA at the same time, the increased pressu
On 2013-9-3 13:38, Lei Li wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 12:20 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
>> Yes, it depends on low-level implementation. During my earlier test,
>
> What do you mean by the 'it depends on low-level implementation'? Do you test
> it with IB or Ethernet?
I've tested both IB(40 GigE) and Ethernet
On 2013-9-3 22:13, Michael R. Hines wrote:
>
> No top-posting, please.
>
> On 09/03/2013 12:20 AM, Frank Yang wrote:
>> Yes, it depends on low-level implementation. During my earlier test,
>> using one CQ to send and receive may cause packet loss with heavy load:
>> the destination thinks it send R
On 2013-9-3 13:03, Lei Li wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> I failed to apply this patch. Please make sure to use git-send-email,
> otherwise
> it's a little hard to review. :)
>
> On 08/30/2013 08:39 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
>> When several VMs migrate with RDMA at the same time, the increased pressure
>> cau
No top-posting, please.
On 09/03/2013 12:20 AM, Frank Yang wrote:
Yes, it depends on low-level implementation. During my earlier test,
using one CQ to send and receive may cause packet loss with heavy load:
the destination thinks it send READY message successfully but the source
still waits for
On 09/03/2013 12:20 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
Yes, it depends on low-level implementation. During my earlier test,
What do you mean by the 'it depends on low-level implementation'? Do you test
it with IB or Ethernet?
using one CQ to send and receive may cause packet loss with heavy load:
the des
Hi Frank,
I failed to apply this patch. Please make sure to use git-send-email, otherwise
it's a little hard to review. :)
On 08/30/2013 08:39 PM, Frank Yang wrote:
When several VMs migrate with RDMA at the same time, the increased
pressure cause packet loss probabilistically and make source an
Yes, it depends on low-level implementation. During my earlier test,
using one CQ to send and receive may cause packet loss with heavy load:
the destination thinks it send READY message successfully but the source
still waits for it. This situation always happens when the destination
polls
receive
Hi. Can you elaborate why two CQs fix it? Does it depend on
HCA implementation?
I'm not against two CQs for sending and receiving. In fact I'm for it
because I use two CQs for postcopy RDMA support.
thanks,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 08:39:31PM +0800, Frank Yang wrote:
> When several VMs migrate wi
When several VMs migrate with RDMA at the same time, the increased pressure
cause packet loss probabilistically and make source and destination wait
for each other. There might be some of VMs blocked during the migration.
Fix the bug by using two completion queues, for sending and receiving
respec
12 matches
Mail list logo
