From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rdma-core] Verbs: Introduce resource domain Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:54:11 -0600 Message-ID: <20170918205411.GB7059@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1505648922-21346-1-git-send-email-yishaih@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1505648922-21346-1-git-send-email-yishaih-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Yishai Hadas Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, majd-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Alexr-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 02:48:42PM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote: > Resource domain represents a collection of IB resources (as of QP, CQ, > etc.) which are accessed by an application from the same context (e.g. > same thread) and as such can share hardware and software resources to > allow smarter management of resources by the provider library and better > performance. This sounds exactly like a PD to me. Why do we need another construct? What is wrong with a 'thread-unsafe' flag during PD creation and then contain the shared resources in the PD? > uint32_t raw_packet_caps; /* Use ibv_raw_packet_caps */ > + uint32_t max_resource_domains; Even with this approach, not sure a max makes much sense, this value should just be hashed into whatever range the provider has on a resource by resource basis. 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