From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Get rid of transport layer retry count config parameter Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:31:10 -0600 Message-ID: <20160622203110.GA20838@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1466597161-5242-1-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> <20160622161559.GA18361@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160622161559.GA18361-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Sagi Grimberg , linux-nvme-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:05:59PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > This parameter was added in order to support a proper timeout for > > error recovery before the spec defined a periodic keep-alive. > > > > Now that we have periodic keep-alive, we don't need a user configurable > > transport layer retry count, the keep-alive timeout is sufficient, > > transports can retry for as long as they see fit. > > Isn't there some IB protocol level rationale for a low retry count > in various fabric setups? IIRC the retry count is part of what drives the APM switch over, so APM configuration should use a lower value. Jason -- 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