From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Khapyorsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/subnet_discover: discover test utility Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:27:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20091222112747.GB26940@me> References: <20090813204306.dffc3237.weiny2@llnl.gov> <20090816110200.GS25501@me> <20090817083023.da17378b.weiny2@llnl.gov> <20090823120609.GG9547@me> <20090826164026.8dcce4b2.weiny2@llnl.gov> <20091023234349.GK5764@me> <20091220121406.GF5262@me> <20091220182809.f7e17fae.weiny2@llnl.gov> <20091221073550.GB18524@me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Hal Rosenstock Cc: Ira Weiny , linux-rdma , Al Chu List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 09:02 Mon 21 Dec , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > I wouldn't call it so, it is rather "parallel" than "first" depth or > > breath - discovery continues at first responding node doesn't matter how > > was it queried in depth or in breath. > > Does anything limit the amount of parallelism ? Nothing in this version. > > I think so. The difference is that OpenSM has a limit of outstanding > > MADs on the wire and subnet_discover doesn't (and there could be a lot > > of MADs). > > Isn't that dangerous in a real subnet ? This is test tool, so I don't think that it is "dangerous". And of course this can lead to an issues with test results. Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html