From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hal Rosenstock Subject: Re: out of order packets when querying all ports in a switch through OpenSM Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:44:46 -0400 Message-ID: <5565E66E.90602@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <5565CCB8.8060600@dev.mellanox.co.il> <5565D518.30602@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jesus Camacho Villanueva Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 5/27/2015 11:31 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote: > The switches are unmanaged. > Is it possible to ensure in-order packets with managed switches? No; same issue as I previously mentioned exists with both. Unmanaged switches just use firmware whereas managed switches have CPU and kernel in addition to firmware so the system is more complex. -- Hal > Jesus > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> On 5/27/2015 10:16 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote: >>> Hi Hal, >>> >>> Thanks for your quick response :) >>> >>> What you say here makes sense. I have seen this behaviour in one of >>> the switches, but I don't discard that this problem can arise in other >>> switches. >> >> Note that for MADs, transaction ID is "looser" than traditional >> transaction ID semantics in that "the combination of TID, SGID, and >> MgmtClass is different from that of any currently executing operation" >> and does not imply ordering. If there is ordering required, it is the >> responsibility of the manager to enforce that. >> >>> The switch is: Infiniscale-IV Mellanox Technologies 4xQDR >> >> Is it a managed or unmanaged switch ? >> >> -- Hal > -- 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