Shared Memory Communications over RDMA
draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7609.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mike Fox , Constantinos (Gus) Kassimis , Jerry Stevens | ||
| Last updated | 2012-12-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma | ||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7609 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-01
TCPM working group M. Fox
Internet Draft C. Kassimis
Intended Status: Informational J. Stevens
Expires: 6/1/2013 IBM
December 13, 2012
Shared Memory Communications over RDMA
draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Fox, et. Al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Abstract
This document describes the Shared Memory Communications over RDMA
(SMC-R) protocol. This protocol provides RDMA communications to TCP
endpoints in a manner that is transparent to socket applications. It
further provides for dynamic discovery of partner RDMA capabilities
and dynamic setup of RDMA connections, transparent high availability
and load balancing when redundant RDMA network paths are available,
and it maintains many of the traditional TCP/IP qualities of service
such as filtering that enterprise users demand, as well as TCP socket
semantics such as urgent data.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4
1.1. Summary of changes in this draft..........................5
1.2. Protocol overview.........................................6
1.3. Definition of common terms................................7
2. Link Architecture.............................................10
2.1. Remote Memory Buffers (RMBs).............................11
2.2. SMC-R Link groups........................................15
2.2.1. Link types..........................................16
2.2.2. Maximum number of links in link group...............19
2.2.3. Forming and managing link groups....................20
2.2.4. SMC-R link identifiers..............................21
2.3. SMC-R resilience and load balancing......................22
3. SMC-R Rendezvous architecture.................................23
3.1. TCP options..............................................24
3.2. Connection Layer Control (CLC) messages..................24
3.3. LLC messages.............................................25
3.4. Rendezvous flows.........................................26
3.4.1. First contact.......................................26
3.4.1.1. TCP Options pre-negotiation....................26
3.4.1.2. Client Proposal................................27
3.4.1.3. Server acceptance..............................28
3.4.1.4. Client confirmation............................29
3.4.1.5. Link (QP) confirmation.........................29
3.4.1.6. Second SMC-R link setup........................32
3.4.1.6.1. Client processing of "Add Link" LLC message
from server..........................................32
3.4.1.6.2. Server processing of "Add Link" reply LLC
message from the client..............................33
3.4.1.6.3. Exchange of Rkeys on second SMC-R link....35
3.4.1.6.4. Aborting SMC-R and falling back to IP.....35
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
3.4.2. Subsequent contact..................................35
3.4.2.1. SMC-R proposal.................................36
3.4.2.2. SMC-R acceptance...............................37
3.4.2.3. SMC-R confirmation.............................38
3.4.2.4. TCP data flow race with SMC Confirm CLC message38
3.4.3. First contact variation: creating a parallel link group
...........................................................39
3.4.4. Normal SMC-R link termination.......................40
3.4.5. Link group management flows.........................41
3.4.5.1. Adding and deleting links in an SMC-R link group41
3.4.5.1.1. Server initiated Add Link processing......41
3.4.5.1.2. Client initiated Add Link processing......42
3.4.5.1.3. Server initiated Delete Link Processing...42
3.4.5.1.4. Client initiated Delete Link request......44
3.4.5.2. Managing multiple Rkeys over multiple SMC-R links
in a link group.........................................46
3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to an SMC-R link group...47
3.4.5.2.2. Deleting an RMB from an SMC-R link group..50
3.4.5.2.3. Adding a new SMC-R link to a link group with
multiple RMBs........................................51
3.4.5.3. Serialization of LLC exchanges, and collisions.52
3.4.5.3.1. Collisions with ADD LINK / CONFIRM LINK
exchange.............................................54
3.4.5.3.2. Collisions during DELETE LINK exchange....55
3.4.5.3.3. Collisions during CONFIRM_RKEY exchange...55
4. SMC-R memory sharing architecture.............................57
4.1. RMB element allocation considerations....................57
4.2. Format of an RMBE control area...........................57
4.3. Use of RMBEs.............................................62
4.3.1. Initializing and accessing RMBEs....................62
4.3.2. RMB element reuse and conflict resolution...........63
4.4. SMC-R protocol considerations............................64
4.4.1. SMC-R protocol optimized window size updates........64
4.4.2. Small data sends....................................65
4.4.3. TCP Keepalive processing............................66
4.5. RMB data flows...........................................68
4.5.1. Scenario 1: Send flow, window size unconstrained....69
4.5.2. Scenario 2: Send/Receive flow, window unconstrained.71
4.5.3. Scenario 3: Send Flow, window constrained...........73
4.5.4. Scenario 4: Large send, flow control, full window size
writes.....................................................75
4.5.5. Scenario 5: Send flow, urgent data, window size
unconstrained..............................................77
4.5.6. Scenario 6: Send flow, urgent data, window size closed80
4.6. Connection termination...................................82
4.6.1. Normal SMC-R connection termination flows...........82
4.6.1.1. Abnormal SMC-R connection termination flows....87
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.6.1.2. Other SMC-R connection termination conditions..89
5. Security considerations.......................................90
5.1. VLAN considerations......................................90
5.2. Firewall considerations..................................90
5.3. IP Filters...............................................91
5.4. Intrusion Detection Services.............................91
5.5. IP Security (IPSec)......................................91
5.6. TLS/SSL..................................................91
6. IANA considerations...........................................91
7. References....................................................92
7.1. Normative References.....................................92
7.2. Informative References...................................92
8. Acknowledgments...............................................92
9. Conventions used in this document.............................92
Appendix A. Formats..............................................93
A.1. TCP option...............................................93
A.2. CLC messages.............................................93
A.2.1. Peer ID format......................................93
A.2.2. SMC Proposal CLC message format.....................95
A.2.3. SMC Accept CLC message format.......................98
A.2.4. SMC Confirm CLC message format.....................101
A.2.5. SMC Decline CLC message format.....................103
A.3. LLC messages............................................104
A.3.1. CONFIRM LINK LLC message format....................105
A.3.2. ADD LINK LLC message format........................107
A.3.3. ADD LINK CONTINUATION LLC message format...........109
A.3.4. DELETE LINK LLC message format.....................112
A.3.5. CONFIRM RKEY LLC message format....................114
A.3.6. TEST LINK LLC message format.......................117
Appendix B. Socket API considerations...........................119
Appendix C. Rendezvous Error scenarios..........................121
C.1. SMC Decline during CLC negotiation......................121
C.2. SMC Decline during LLC negotiation......................121
C.3. The SMC Decline window..................................123
C.4. Out of synch conditions during SMC-R negotiation........123
C.5. Timeouts during CLC negotiation.........................124
C.6. Protocol errors during CLC negotiation..................124
C.7. Timeouts during LLC negotiation.........................125
C.7.1. Recovery actions for LLC timeouts and failures.....126
C.8. Failure to add second SMC-R link to a link group........131
1. Introduction
This document is a specification of the Shared Memory Communications
over RDMA (SMC-R) protocol. SMC-R is a protocol for Remote Direct
Memory Access (RDMA) communication between TCP socket endpoints. SMC-
R runs over networks that support RDMA over Converged Ethernet
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
(RoCE). It is designed to permit existing TCP applications to
benefit from RDMA without requiring modifications to the applications
or predefinition of RDMA partners.
SMC-R provides dynamic discovery of the RDMA capabilities of TCP
peers and automatic setup of RDMA connections that those peers can
use. SMC-R also provides transparent high availability and load
balancing capabilities that are demanded by enterprise installations
but are missing from current RDMA protocols. If redundant RoCE
capable hardware such as RDMA NICs (RNICs)and RoCE capable switches
is present, SMC-R can load balance over that redundant hardware and
can also non-disruptively move TCP traffic from failed paths to
surviving paths, all seamlessly to the application and the sockets
layer. Because SMC-R preserves socket semantics and the TCP three-way
handshake, many TCP qualities of service such as filtering, load
balancing, and SSL encryption are preserved, as are TCP features such
as urgent data.
Because of the dynamic discovery and setup of SMC-R connectivity
between peers, no RDMA connection manager (RDMA-CM) is required. This
also means that support for UD queue pairs is also not required.
It is recommended that the SMC-R services be implemented in kernel
space, which enables optimizations such as resource sharing between
connections across multiple processes and also permits applications
using SMC-R to spawn multiple processes (e.g. fork) without losing
SMC-R functionality. A user space implementation is compatible with
this architecture, but it may not support spawned processes (i.e.
fork) which limits sharing and resource optimization to TCP
connections that originate from the same process. This might be an
appropriate design choice if the use case is a system that hosts a
large single process application that creates many TCP connections to
a peer host, or in implementations where a kernel space
implementation is not possible or introduces excessive overhead for
kernel space to user space context switches.
While SMC-R as specified in this document is designed to operate over
RoCE fabrics, adjustments to the rendezvous methods could enable it
to run over other RDMA fabrics such as Infiniband and iWarp.
1.1. Summary of changes in this draft
Significant changes in this architecture since the previous draft:
o Removed requirement for zero-based virtual addressing by adding
virtual address fields to CLC and LLC messages.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Removed requirement for client and server IP addresses to be in
the same IP subnet or prefix by including subnet or prefix
information on SMC Proposal message.
1.2. Protocol overview
SMC-R defines the concept of the SMC-R Link, which is a logical
point-to-point link between TCP/IP stack peers over a RoCE fabric.
An SMC-R link is bound to a specific hardware path, meaning a
specific RNIC on each peer. SMC-R links are created and maintained by
an SMC-R layer, which may reside in kernel or user space depending
upon operating system and implementation requirements. The SMC-R
layer resides below the sockets layer and directs data traffic for
TCP connections between connected peers over the RoCE fabric using
RDMA rather than over a TCP connection. The TCP/IP stack with its
fragmentation, packetization, etc. requirements is bypassed and the
application data is moved between peers using RDMA.
An SMC-R link manages Remote Memory Buffers (RMBs), which are areas
of memory that are available for SMC-R peers to write into using RDMA
writes. Multiple TCP connections between peers may be multiplexed
over a single SMC-R link, in which case the SMC-R layer manages the
partitioning of the RMBs between the TCP connections. This
multiplexing reduces the RDMA resources such as queue pairs and RMBs
that are required to support multiple connections between stack
peers, and also reduces the processing and delays related to setting
up queue pairs, pinning memory, and other RDMA setup tasks when new
TCP connections are created. In a kernel space SMC-R implementation
in which the RMBs reside in kernel storage, this sharing and
optimization works across multiple processes executing on the same
host. In a user space SMC-R implementation in which the RMBs reside
in user space, this sharing and optimization is limited to multiple
TCP connections created by a single process, as separate RMBs and QPs
will be required for each process.
Multiple SMC-R links between the same two TCP/IP stack peers are also
supported. If there is redundant hardware, for example two RNICs on
each peer, separate SMC-R links are created between the peers to
exploit that redundant hardware. The redundant links are available
for load balancing as well as seamless failover. A set of SMC-R links
that provides redundant connectivity is called a link group.
SMC-R also introduces a rendezvous protocol that is used to
dynamically discover the RDMA capabilities of TCP connection partners
and exchange credentials necessary to exploit that capability if
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
present. TCP connections are set up using the normal TCP 3-way
handshake, with the addition of a new TCP option that indicates SMC-R
capability. If both partners indicate SMC-R capability then at the
completion of the 3-way TCP handshake the SMC-R layers in each peer
take control of the TCP connection and use it to exchange additional
connection level control (CLC) messages to negotiate SMC-R
credentials such as queue pair (QP) information, addressability over
the RoCE fabric, RMB buffer sizes, keys and addresses for accessing
RMBs over RDMA, etc. If at any time during this negotiation a
failure or decline occurs, the TCP connection falls back to using the
IP fabric.
If the SMC-R negotiation succeeds and either a new SMC-R link is set
up or an existing SMC-R link is chosen for the TCP connection, then
the SMC-R layers open the sockets to the applications and the
applications use the sockets as normal. The SMC-R layer intercepts
the socket reads and writes and moves the TCP connection data over
the SMC-R link, "out of band" to the TCP connection which remains
open and idle, except for termination flows and possible keepalive
flows. Regular TCP sequence numbering methods are used for the TCP
flows that do occur; data flowing over RDMA does not use or affect
TCP sequence numbers.
This architecture does not support fallback of active SMC-R
connections to IP. Once connection data has completed the switch to
RDMA, a TCP connection cannot be switched back to IP and will reset
if RDMA becomes unusable.
The SMC-R protocol defines the format of the Remote Memory Buffers
that are used to receive TCP connection data written over RDMA, as
well as the semantics for managing and writing to these buffers.
Finally, SMC-R defines link level control (LLC) messages that are
exchanged over the RoCE fabric between peer SMC-R layers to manage
the SMC-R links and link groups. These include messages to test and
confirm connectivity over an SMC-R link, add and delete SMC-R links
to or from the link group, and exchange RMB addressability
information.
1.3. Definition of common terms
This section provides definitions of terms that have a specific
meaning to the SMC-R protocol and are used throughout this document.
SMC-R link
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
An SMC-R Link is a logical point to point connection over the
RoCE fabric via specific physical adapters (MAC/GID). The Link
is formed during the first contact sequence of the TCP/IP 3 way
handshake sequence that occurs over the IP fabric. During this
handshake an RDMA RC-QP connection is formed between the two peer
SMC hosts and is defined as the SMC Link. The SMC Link can then
support multiple TCP connections between the two peers. An SMC
link is associated with a single VLAN and is not routable.
SMC-R link group
An SMC-R Link Group is a group of SMC-R Links typically each over
unique RoCE adapters between the same two SMC-R peers. Each link
in the link group has equal characteristics such as the same VLAN
ID, access to the same RMB(s) and the same TCP server / client
SMC-R peer
The SMC-R Peer stack is the peer software stack within the peer
Operating System with respect the Shared Memory Communications
(messaging) protocol.
SMC-R Rendezvous
The SMC-R Rendezvous is the SMC-R peer discovery and handshake
sequence that occurs transparently over the IP (Ethernet) fabric
during and immediately after the TCP connection 3 way handshake
by exchanging the SMC capabilities and credentials using
experimental TCP option and CLC messages.
TCP Client
The TCP socket-based peer that initiates a TCP connection
TCP Server
The TCP socket-based peer that accepts a TCP connection
CLC messages
The SMC-R protocol defines a set of Connection Layer Control
Messages that flow over the TCP connection that are used to
manage SMC link rendezvous at TCP connection setup time. This
mechanism is analogous to SSL setup messages
LLC Commands
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The SMC-R protocol defines a set of RoCE Link Layer Control
Commands that flow over the RoCE fabric using RDMA sendmsg, that
are used to manage SMC Links, SMC Link Groups and SMC Link Group
RMB expansion and contraction.
RMB
A Remote (RDMA) Memory Buffer is a fixed or pinned buffer
allocated in each of the peer hosts for a TCP (via SMC-R)
connection. The RMB is registered to the RNIC and allows remote
access by the remote stack using RDMA semantics. Each host is
passed the peer's RMB specific access information (RKey and RMB
Element offset) during the SMC-R rendezvous process. The host
stores socket application user data directly into the peer's RMB
using RDMA over RoCE.
Rtoken
The combination of an RMB's Rkey and RDMA virtual addressing, an
Rtoken provides addressability to an RMB to an RDMA peer
RMBE
The Remote Memory Buffer Element is an area of an RMB that is
allocated to a specific TCP connection. The RMBE contains data
for the TCP connection. The RMBE represents the TCP receive
buffer whereby the remote peer writes into the RMBE and the local
peer reads from the local RMBE. The alert token resolves to a
specific RMBE.
Alert Token
The SMC-R alert token is a a four byte value that uniquely
identifies the TCP connection over an SMC-R connection. The
alert token allows the SMC peer to quickly identify the target
TCP connection that now has new work. The format of the token is
defined by the owning SMC-R end point and is considered opaque to
the remote peer. However the token should not simply an index to
an RMBE element; it should reference a TCP connection and be able
to be validated to avoid reading data from stale connections.
RNIC
The RDMA capable Network Interface Card (RNIC) is an Ethernet NIC
that supports RDMA semantics and verbs using RoCE.
First Contact
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Describes an SMC-R negotiation to set up the first link in a link
group
Subsequent Contact
Describes an SMC-R negotiation between peers who are using an
already existing SMC-R link group
2. Link Architecture
An SMC-R link is based on reliably connected queue pairs (QPs) that
form a "logical point to point link" between the two SMC-R peers over
a RoCE fabric. An SMC-R link extends from SMC-R to SMC-R stack, where
typically each peer stack would reside on separate hosts.
,,.--..,_
+----+ _-`` `-, +-----+
|QP 8| - RoCE ', |QP 64|
| | / VLAN M . | |
+----+--------+/ \+-------+-----+
| RNIC 1 | SMC-R Link | RNIC 2 |
| |<--------------------->| |
+------------+ , /+------------+
MAC A (GID A) MAC B (GID B)
. .`
`', ,-`
``''--''``
Figure 1 SMC-R Link Overview
Figure 1 illustrates an overview of the basic concepts of SMC-R peer
to peer connectivity which is called the SMC-R Link. The SMC-R Link
forms a logical point to point connection between two SMC-R peers via
RoCE. The SMC Link is defined and identified by the following
attributes:
SMC-R Link = RC QPs (source VMAC GID QP + target VMAC GID QP + VLAN
ID)
The SMC-R Link is associated with a single and specific VLAN. VLAN
exploitation is required for SMC-R as it is a key isolation attribute
of this architecture. The RoCE fabric is the same physical fabric
used for standard TCP/IP over Ethernet communications, with Converged
Enhanced Ethernet (CEE_enabled) switches.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
An SMC-R Link is designed to support multiple TCP connections between
the same two peers. An SMC Link is intended to be long lived while
the underlying TCP connections can dynamically come and go. The
associated RMBs can also be dynamically added and removed from the
link as needed. The first TCP connection between the peers
establishes the SMC-R link. Subsequent TCP connections then use the
previously established link. When the last TCP connection terminates
the link can then be terminated, typically after an implementation
defined idle time-out period has elapsed. The TCP server is
responsible for initiating and terminating the SMC Link.
2.1. Remote Memory Buffers (RMBs)
Figure 2 shows the hosts X and Y and their associated RMBs within
each host. With the SMC-R link and the associated RMB keys (Rkeys)and
RDMA virtual addresses each SMC stack can remotely access its peer's
RMBs using RDMA. The RKeys and virtual addresses are exchanged during
the rendezvous processing when the link is established. The
combination of the Rkey and the virtual address is the Rtoken. Note
that the SMC-R Link ends at the QP providing access to the RMB (via
the Link + RToken).
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ ,.--.,_ +-------------------+
| | .'` '. | |
| Protection | ,' `, | Protection |
| Domain X | / \ | Domain Y |
| +------+ / \ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| | SMC-R Link | |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
| | | |<-------------------->| | | |
| | | || || | | |
| | +------+| VLAN A |+------+ | |
| | || || | |
| | | | RoCE | | | |
| |RTokenX) | \ / |RToken (Y)| |
| | | \ / | | |
| V | `. ,' | V |
| +--------+ | '._ ,' | +--------+ |
| | | | `''-'`` | | | |
| | RMB | | | | RMB | |
| | | | | | | |
| +--------+ | | +--------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 2 SMC link and RMBs
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
An SMC-R link can support multiple RMBs which are independently
managed by each peer. The number of and the size of RMBs are managed
by the peers based on host unique memory management requirements. The
QP has a single protection domain, but each RMB has a unique RToken.
All RTokens must be exchanged with the peer.
Each peer manages the RMBs in its local memory for its remote SMC-R
peer by sharing access to the RMBs via Rtokens with its peers. The
remote peer writes into the RMBs via RDMA and the local peer (RMB
owner) then reads from the RMBs.
When two peers decide to use SMC-R for a given TCP connection, they
each allocate a local RMB Element for the TCP connection and
communicate the location of this local RMB Element during rendezvous
processing. To that end, RMB elements are created in pairs, with one
RMB element allocated locally on each peer of the SMC-R link.
--- +----------------------------+
/\ | |
| | Control Area |
| +----------------------------+
| | |
RMB Element 1 | |
| | Receive Buffer |
| | |
| | |
\/ | |
--- +----------------------------+
/\ | |
| | Control Area |
| +----------------------------+
| | |
RMB Element 2 | |
| | Receive Buffer |
| | |
| | |
\/ | |
--- +----------------------------+
| . |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| (up to 255 elements) |
+----------------------------+
Figure 3 RMB Format
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Figure 3 illustrates the basic format of an RMB. The RMB is a
contiguous block of pinned memory that can support up to 255 TCP
connections to exactly one remote SMC-R peer. Each RMB is therefore
associated with the SMC-R links for the two peers and a specific RoCE
Protection Domain. Other than the 2 peers identified by the SMC-R
link no other SMC-R peers can have RDMA access to an RMB; this
requires a unique Protection Domain for every SMC-R Link. This is
critical to ensure integrity of SMC-R communications.
RMBs are allocated with multiple entries for efficiency; multiple TCP
connections across an SMC link can share the same memory for RDMA
purposes, reducing the overhead of having to register additional
memory with the RNIC for every new TCP connection. The number of
entries in an RMB and the size of each RMB Element is entirely
governed by the owning peer subject to the SMC-R architecture rules.
Each peer can decide the level of resource sharing that is desirable
across TCP connections based on local constraints such as available
system memory, etc. Each RMB supports multiple RMB Elements, one per
TCP connection; however, all RMB elements within a given RMB must
have the same size. An RMB Element is identified to the remote SMC-R
peer via an RMB Element Token which consists of the following:
o RMB RToken: The combination of the Rkey and virtual address
provided by the RNIC that identifies the start of the RMB for RDMA
operations.
o RMB Index: Identifies the RMB element index in the RMB. Used to
locate a specific RMB element within an RMB. Valid value range is
1-255.
o RMB element length: The length of the RMB element's control area
plus the length of receive buffer. This length is equal for all
RMB elements in a given RMB. This length can be variable across
different RMBs.
Multiple RMBs can be associated to an SMC-R link and each peer in an
SMC-R link manages allocation of its RMBs. RMB allocation can be
asymmetric. For example, server X can allocate 2 RMBs to an SMC-R
link while server Y allocates 5. This provides maximum
implementation flexibility to allow hosts optimize RMB management for
their own local requirements.
One use case for multiple RMBs is multiple receive buffer sizes.
Since every element in an RMB must be the same size, multiple RMBs
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
with different element sizes can be allocated if varying receive
buffer sizes are required.
Also since the maximum number of TCP connections whose receive
buffers can be allocated to an RMB is 255, multiple RMBs may be
required to provide capacity for large numbers of TCP connections
between two peers.
As shown in Figure 3, each RMB element contains a controlarea and a
receive buffer. The control area contains flags for maintaining the
state of the TCP data (for example, urgent indicator) and most
importantly, two cursors which are illustrated in Figure 4:
o The peer producer cursor: This is a wrapping offset into this RMB
element's receive buffer that points to the next byte of data to
be written by the peer. This cursor is maintained by the peer
using RDMA writes into the control area, and tells the local stack
how far it can consume data in the RMBE write buffer.
o The peer consumer cursor: This is a wrapping offset into the
peer's RMB element's receive buffer that points to the next byte
of data to be consumed by the peer in its own RMBE. This stack
cannot write into the peer's RMBE beyond this point without
causing data loss.
Each TCP connection peer maintains its cursors for a TCP connection's
RMBE in its peer RMBE. In other words, the stack who writes into a
peer's RMBE maintains its producer cursor in the control area of the
peer's RMBE. The stack who reads from its RMBE maintains its
consumer cursor in the control area of its peer's RMBE. In this
manner the reads and writes between peers are kept coordinated.
For example, referring to Figure 4, peer B writes the hashed data
into the receive buffer of peer A's RMBE. After that write
completes, peer B uses an RDMA write to update its producer cursor in
peer A's RMBE control area to indicate to peer A how much data is
available to be consumed. Once that write is complete, peer B "wakes
up" peer A by writing a write complete indicator with notification.
Similarly, when peer A consumes data written by peer B, it uses an
RDMA write to update its consumer cursor in peer B's RMBE control
area to let peer B know how much data it has consumed, so peer B
knows how much space is available for further writes. If peer B were
to write enough data to peer A that it would wrap the RMBE receive
buffer and exceed the consumer cursor, data loss would result.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Peer A's RMBE Peer B's RMBE
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
| | | |
/----Peer producer cursor | +-----+-Peer consumer cursor |
/| | | | |
| +--------------------------+ | +--------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | \/ | | |
| | +------------| | |
| |-------------+/////////// | | |
| |//RMA data written by /// | | |
| |/// peer B that is ////// | | |
| |/available to be consumed/| | |
| |///////////////////////// | | |
| |///////// +---------------| | |
| |----------+/\ | | |
| | | | | |
\| | | | |
\ / | | |
|\---------/ | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
Figure 4 RMBE cursors
RMBEs contain additional flags and indicators in their control areas.
In all cases, these flags and indicators are updated by the peer
using RDMA writes. Like the consumer cursor, an indicator may
provide status about the peer RMBE rather than the RMBE in which the
indicator resides. More details on these additional flags and
indicators are described in 4.2. Format of an RMBE control area.
2.2. SMC-R Link groups
SMC-R links are be logically grouped together to form an SMC-R Link
Group. The purpose of the Link Group is for supporting multiple links
between the same two peers to provide for:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Resilience: Provides transparent and dynamic switching of the link
used by existing TCP connections during link failures, typically
hardware related. TCP traffic using the failing link can be
switched to an active link within the link group avoiding
disruptions to application workloads.
o Link utilization: Provides an active/active link usage model
allowing TCP traffic to be balanced across the links, which
increases bandwidth and avoids hardware imbalances and
bottlenecks. Note that both adapter and switch utilization can
become potential resource constraint issues
SMC-R Link Group support is required. Resilience is not optional.
Multiple links that are formed between the same two peers fall into
two distinct categories:
1. Equal Links: Links providing equal access to the same RMB(s) at
both endpoints whereby all TCP connections associated with the
links must have the same VLAN ID and have the same TCP server
and TCP client roles or relationship.
2. Unequal Links: Links providing access to unique, unrelated and
isolated RMB(s) (i.e. for unique VLANs or unique and isolated
application workloads, etc.) or have unique TCP server or client
roles.
Links that are logically grouped together forming an SMC Link Group
must be equal links.
2.2.1. Link types
Equal links within a link group also have another "Link Type"
attribute based on the link's associated underlying physical path.
The following SMC-R link types are defined:
1. Single Link: the only active link within a link group
2. Parallel Link: not allowed - SMC Links having the same physical
RNIC at both hosts
3. Asymmetric Link: links that have unique RNIC adapters at one
host but share a single adapter at the peer host
4. Symmetric Link: links that have unique RNIC adapters at both
hosts
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
These link types are further explained in the following figures and
descriptions.
Figure 2 above shows the single link case. The single link
illustrated in Figure 2 also establishes the SMC-R Link Group. Link
groups are supposed to have multiple links, but when only one RNIC is
available at both hosts then only a single link can be created. This
is expected to be a transient case.
Figure 5 shows the symmetric link case. Both hosts have unique and
redundant RNIC adapters. This configuration meets the objectives for
providing full RoCE redundancy required to provide the level of
resilience required for high availability for SMC-R. While this
configuration is not required, it is a strongly recommended "best
practice" for the exploitation of SMC-R. Single and asymmetric links
must be supported but are intended to provide for short term
transient conditions, for example during a temporary outage or
recycle of a RNIC.
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | |
| Protection | | Protection |
| Domain X | | Domain Y |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R Link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|RToken X| | |<-------------------->| | | |
| | | | | | |RToken Y|
| \/ +------+ +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
|| | | | | | |
|| RMB | | | | RMB | |
|| | | | | | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| /\ +------+ +------+ /\ |
|RToken Z| | | SMC-R Link 2 | | |RToken W|
| | |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4| | |
| QP 9 | | | | QP 65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 5 Symmetric SMC-R links
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | |
| Protection | | Protection |
| Domain X | | Domain Y |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R Link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|RToken X| | |<-------------------->| | | |
| | | | .->| | |RToken Y|
| \/ +------+ .` +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | .` | +--------+ |
|| | | .` | | | |
|| RMB | | .` | | RMB | |
|| | | .`SMC-R | | | |
|+--------+ | .` Link 2 | +--------+ |
| /\ +------+ .` +------+ |
|Rtoken Z| | | .` | |down or |
| | |RNIC 3|<-` |RNIC 4|unavailable |
| QP 9 | | | | |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 6 Asymmetric SMC-R links
In the example provided by Figure 6, host X has two RNICs but Host Y
only has one RNIC. This configuration allows for the creation of an
asymmetric link. While an asymmetric link will provide some
resilience (i.e. when RNIC 1 fails) ideally each host should provide
two redundant RNICs. This should be a transient case, and when RNIC
4 becomes available, this configuration must transition to a
symmetric link configuration.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | |
| Protection | | Protection |
| Domain X | | Domain Y |
| +------+ SMC-R link 1 +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1|<-------------------->|RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|RToken X| | | | | | |
| | | |<-------------------->| | |Rtoken Y|
| \/ +------+ SMC-R link 2 +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ QP 9 | | QP 65 +--------+ |
|| | | | | | | | |
|| RMB |<-- + | | +---->| RMB | |
|| | | | | | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| +------+ +------+ |
| down or| | | |down or |
| unavailale|RNIC 3| |RNIC 4|unavailable |
| | | | | |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 7 SMC-R parallel links (not supported)
Figure 7 shows parallel links, which are two links in the link group
that use the same hardware. This configuration is not permitted.
Because SMC-R multiplexes multiple TCP connections over an SMC-R link
and both links are using the exact same hardware, there is no
additional redundancy or capacity benefit obtained from this
configuration. However this configuration does add unnecessary
overhead of additional queue pairs, generation of additional Rkeys,
etc.
2.2.2. Maximum number of links in link group
The SMC-R protocol defines a maximum of 8 symmetric SMC-R links
within a single SMC-R link group. This allows for support for up to
8 unique physical paths between peer hosts. However, in terms of
meeting the basic requirements for redundancy support for at least 2
symmetric links must be implemented. Supporting greater than 2
links also simplifies implementation for practical matters relating
to dynamically adding and removing links, for example starting a
third SMC-R link prior to taking down one of the two existing links.
Recall that all links within a link group must have equal access to
all associated RMBs.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The SMC-R protocol allows an implementation to implement an
implementation specific and appropriate value for maximum symmetric
links. The implementation value must not exceed the architecture
limit of 8 and the implementation must not be lower than 2, because
the SMC-R protocol requires redundancy. This does not mean that two
RNICs are physically required to enable SMC-R connectivity, but at
least two RNICs for redundancy are strongly recommended.
The SMC-R stacks exchange their implementation maximum link values
during the link group establishment using the defined maximum link
value in the CONFIRM LINK LLC command. Once the initial exchange
completes the value is set for the life of the link group. The
maximum link value can be provided by both the server and client. The
server must supply a value, whereas the client maximum link value is
optional. When the client does not supply a value, it indicates that
the client accepts the server supplied maximum value. If the client
provides a value it can not exceed the server maximum value. If the
client passes a lower value then this lower value then becomes the
final negotiated maximum number of symmetric links for this link
group. Again, the minimum value is 2.
During run time the client must never request that the server add a
symmetric link to a link group that would exceed the negotiated
maximum link value. Likewise the server must never attempt to add a
symmetric link to a link group that would exceed the negotiated
maximum value.
In terms of counting the active link count within a link group, the
initial link (or the only / last) link is always counted as 1. Then
as additional links are added they are either symmetric or asymmetric
links.
With regards to enforcing the maximum link rules, asymmetric links
are an exception having a unique set of rules:
o Asymmetric links are always limited to one asymmetric link allowed
per link group
o Asymmetric links must not be counted in the maximum symmetric link
count calculation. When tracking the current count or enforcing
the negotiated maximum number of links, an asymmetric link is not
to be counted
2.2.3. Forming and managing link groups
SMC-R link groups are self-defining. The first SMC-R link in a link
group is created using TCP option flows on the TCP three-way
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
handshake followed by CLC message flows over the TCP connection.
Subsequent SMC-R links in the link group are created by sending LLC
messages over an SMC-R link that already exists in the link group.
Once an SMC-R link group is created, no additional SMC-R links in
that group are created using TCP and CLC negotiation. Because
subsequent SMC-R links are created exclusively by sending LLC
messages over an existing SMC-R link in a link group, the membership
of SMC-R links to a link group is self-defining.
This architecture does not define a specific identifier for an SMC-R
link group. This identification may be useful for network management
and may be assigned in a platform specific manner, or in an extension
to this architecture.
In each SMC-R link group, one peer is the server for all TCP
connections and the other peer is the client. If there are
additional TCP connections between the peers that use SMC-R and have
the client and server roles reversed, another SMC-R link group is set
up between them with the opposite client-server relationship.
This is required because there are specific responsibilities divided
between the client and server in the management of an SMC-R link
group.
In this architecture, the following decision of whether or not to use
an existing SMC-R link group or create a new SMC-R link group for a
TCP connection is made exclusively by the server
Management of the links in an SMC-R link group is also a server
responsibility. The server is responsible for adding and deleting
links in a link group. The client may request that the server take
certain actions but the final responsibility is the server's.
2.2.4. SMC-R link identifiers
This architecture defines multiple identifiers to identify SMC-R
links and peers.
o Link number: This is a one-byte value that identifies an SMC-R
link within a link group. Both the server and the client use this
number to distinguish an SMC-R link from other links within the
same link group. It is only unique within a link group.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Link User ID: This is an architecturally opaque four byte value
that a peer uses to uniquely define an SMC-R link within its own
space. This means that a link user ID is unique within one stack
only. Each peer defines its own link user ID for a link. The
peers exchange this information once during link setup and it is
never used architecturally again. The purpose of this identifier
is for network management, display, and debugging purposes. For
example an operator on a client could provide the operator on the
server with the server's link user ID if he requires the server's
operator to check on the operation of a link that the client is
having trouble with.
o Peer ID: The SMC-R peer ID uniquely identifies a specific instance
of a specific stack. It is required because in clustered and load
balancing environments, an IP address does not uniquely identify a
stack. An RNIC's MAC/GID also doesn't uniquely or reliably
identify a stack because RNICs can go up and down and even be
redeployed to other stacks in a multiple partitioned or
virtualized environment. The peer ID is not only unique per stack
but is also unique per instance of a stack, meaning that if a
stack is restarted, its peer ID changes.
2.3. SMC-R resilience and load balancing
The SMC-R multi-link architecture provides resilience for network
high availability via failover capability to an alternate RoCE
adapter.
The SMC-R multilink architecture does not define primary, secondary
or alternate roles to the links. Instead there are multiple active
links representing multiple redundant RoCE paths over the same VLAN.
If a hardware failure occurs or a QP failure associated with an
individual link, then the TCP connections that were associated with
the failing link are be dynamically and transparently switched to use
another available link. The server or the client can detect a
failure and immediately move their TCP connections and then notify
their peer via the DELETE LINK LLC command. The server must perform
the actual link deletion.
The movement of TCP connections to another link can be accomplished
without notifying or coordinating with the peer. The TCP connection
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
movement is also transparent to and non disruptive to the TCP socket
application workloads. After a failure, the surviving links and all
associated hardware must handle the link group's workload.
As each SMC-R stack begins to move active TCP connections to another
link all current RDMA write operations must be allowed to complete
and then may be retried over the new link if the previously completed
RDMA write operation did not successfully complete.
When a new link becomes available and is re-added to the link group
then each stack is free to rebalance its current TCP connections as
needed or only assign new TCP connections to the newly added link.
Both the server and client are free to manage TCP connections across
the link group as needed. TCP connection movement does not have to
stimulated by a link failure.
The SMC-R architecture also defines orderly vs. disorderly failover.
The type is communicated in the LLC Delete Link command and is simply
a means to indicate that the link has terminated (disorderly) or link
termination is imminent (orderly). The orderly link deletion could
be initiated via operator command or programmatically to bring down
an idle link. For example an operator command could initiate orderly
shut down of an adapter for service. Implementation of the two types
is based on implementation requirements and is beyond the scope of
the SMC-R architecture.
3. SMC-R Rendezvous architecture
Rendezvous is the process that SMC-R capable peers use to dynamically
discover each others' capabilities, negotiate SMC-R connections, set
up SMC-R links and link groups, and manage those link groups. A key
aspect of SMC-R rendezvous is that it occurs dynamically and
automatically, without requiring SMC link configuration to be defined
by an administrator.
SMC-R Rendezvous starts with the TCP/IP three-way handshake during
which connection peers use TCP options to announce their SMC-R
capabilities. If both endpoints are SMC-R capable, then Connection
Layer Control (CLC) messages are exchanged between the peers' SMC-R
layers over the newly established TCP connection to negotiate SMC-R
credentials. The CLC message mechanism is analogous to the messages
exchanged by SSL.
If a new SMC-R link is being set up, Link Layer Control (LLC)
messages are used to confirm RDMA connectivity. LLC messages are
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
also used by the SMC-R layers at each peer to manage the links and
link groups.
Once an SMC-R link is set up or agreed to by the peers, the TCP
sockets are passed to the peer applications which use them as normal.
The SMC-R layer, which resides under the sockets layer, transmits the
socket data between peers over RDMA using the SMC-R protocol,
bypassing the TCP/IP stack.
3.1. TCP options
During the TCP/IP three-way handshake, the client and server indicate
their support for SMC-R by including experimental TCP option 253 on
the three-way handshake flows, in accordance with draft-ietf-tcpm-
experimental-options-01.txt. The magic number value used is the
string 'SMCR' in EBCDIC (IBM-1047) encoding (0xE2D4C3D9).
After completion of the 3-way TCP handshake each peer queries its
peer's options. If both peers set the TCP option on the three-way
handshake, inline SMC-R negotiation occurs using CLC messages. If
neither peer or only one peer set the TCP option, SMC-R cannot be
used for the TCP connection, and the TCP connection completes setup
using the IP fabric.
3.2. Connection Layer Control (CLC) messages
CLC messages are sent as data payload over the newly opened TCP
connection between SMC-R layers at the peers. They are analogous to
the messages used to exchange parameters for SSL.
Use of CLC messages is detailed in the following sections. The
following list provides a summary of the defined CLC messages and
their purposes:
o SMC PROPOSAL: Sent from the client to propose that this TCP
connection is eligible to be moved to SMC-R. The client identifies
itself and its subnet to the server and passes the SMC-R elements
for a suggested RoCE path via the MAC and GID.
o SMC ACCEPT: Sent from the server to accept the client's TCP
connection SMC proposal. The server responds to the client's
proposal by identifying itself to the client and passing the
elements of a RoCE path that the client can use to to perform RDMA
writes to the server. This consists of SMC-R ink elements such as
RoCE MAC, GID, RMB information etc.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o SMC CONFIRM: Sent from the client to confirm the server's
acceptance of SMC connection. The client responds to the server's
acceptance by passing the elements of a RoCE path that the server
can use to to perform RDMA writes to the client. This consists of
SMC-R ink elements such as RoCE MAC, GID, RMB information etc.
o SMC DECLINE: Sent from either the server or the client to reject
the SMC connection, indicating the reason the peer must decline
the SMC proposal and allowing the TCP connection to revert back to
IP connectivity.
3.3. LLC messages
Link Layer Control (LLC) messages are sent between peer SMC-R layers
over an SMC-R link to manage the link or the link group. LLC
messages are sent using RoCE sendmsg with inline data and are 44
bytes long. The 44 bytes size is based on what can fit into a RoCE
Work Queue Element (WQE) without requiring the posting of receive
buffers.
LLC messages generally follow a request-reply semantic. Each message
has a request flavor and a reply flavor, and each request must be
confirmed with a reply, except where otherwise noted. Use of LLC
messages is detailed in the following sections. The following list
provides a summary of the defined LLC messages and their purposes:
o ADD LINK: Add a new link to a link group. Sent from the server to
the client to initiate addition of a new link to the link group,
or from the client to the server to request that the server
initiate addition of a new link.
o ADD LINK CONTINUATION: This is a continuation of ADD link that
allows the ADD link to span multiple commands, because all the
link information cannot be contained in a single ADD LINK message
o CONFIRM LINK: Used to confirm that RoCE connectivity over a newly
created SMC-R link is working correctly. Initiated by the server,
and both this message and its reply must flow over the SMC-R link
being confirmed.
o DELETE LINK: When initiated by the server, deletes a specific link
from the link group or deletes the entire link group. When
initiated by the client, requests that the server delete a
specific link or the entire link group.
o CONFIRM RKEY: Informs the peer on the SMC-R link of the addition
or deletion of one or more RMBs in the link group
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o TEST LINK: Verifies that an already-active SMC-R link is active
and healthy
CONFIRM LINK and TEST LINK are sensitive to which link they flow on
and must flow on the link being confirmed or tested. The other flows
may flow over any active link in the link group. When there are
multiple links in a link group, a response to an LLC message must
flow over the same link that the original message flowed over, with
the following exceptions:
o ADD LINK request from a server in response to an ADD LINK from a
client
o DELETE LINK request from a server in response to a DELETE LINK
from a client
3.4. Rendezvous flows
Rendezvous information for SMC-R is be exchanged as TCP options on
the TCP 3-way handshake flows to indicate capability, followed by in-
line TCP negotiation messages to actually do the SMC-R setup. Formats
of all rendezvous options and messages discussed in this section are
detailed in Appendix A.
3.4.1. First contact
First contact between RoCE peers occurs when a new SMC-R link group
is being set up. This could be because no SMC-R links already exist
between the peers, or the server decides to create a new SMC-R link
group in parallel with an existing one.
3.4.1.1. TCP Options pre-negotiation
The client and server indicate their SMC-R capability to each other
using TCP option 253 on the TCP 3-way handshake flows.
A client who wishes to do SMC-R will include TCP option 253 using a
magic number equal to the EBCDIC (codepage IBM-1047) encoding of
"SMCR" on its SYN flow.
A server that supports SMC-R will include TCP option 253 with the
magic number value of EBCDIC "SMCR" on its SYN-ACK flow. Because the
server is listening for connections and does not know where client
connections will come from, the server unconditionally includes this
TCP option if it supports SMC-R. This may be required for servers
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
such as Linux where proprietary extensions to the TCP stack are not
practical. For proprietary servers which can add code to examine and
react to packets during the three-way handshake, the server should
only include the SMC-R TCP option on SYN-ACK if the client included
it on its SYN packet.
A client who supports SMC-R and meets the three conditions outlined
above may optionally include the TCP option for SMC-R on its ACK
flow, regardless of whether or not the server included it on its SYN-
ACK flow. Some stacks may have to include it if the SMC-R layer
cannot modify the options on the socket until the 3-way handshake
completes. Proprietary servers should not include this option on the
ACK flow, since including it on the SYN flow was sufficient to
indicate the client's capabilities.
Once the initial three-way TCP handshake is completed, each peer
examines the socket options. Proprietary stacks may do this by
examining what was actually provided on the SYN and SYN-ACK packets,
and open stacks may do this by performing a getsockopt() operation to
determine the options set by the peer. If neither peer, or only one
peer, specified the TCP option for SMC-R, then SMC-R cannot be used
on this connection and it proceeds using normal IP flows and
processing.
If both peers specified the TCP option for SMC-R, then the TCP
connection is not started yet and the peers proceed to SMC-R
negotiation using inline data flows, similar to the SSL negotiation
model. The socket is not yet turned over to the applications;
instead the respective SMC layers exchange CLC messages over the
newly formed TCP connection.
3.4.1.2. Client Proposal
If SMC-R is supported by both peers, the client sends an SMC Proposal
CLC message to the server. On this flow from client to server it is
not immediately apparent if this is a new or existing SMC-R link
because in clustered environments a single IP address may represent
multiple hosts. This type of cluster virtual IP address can be owned
by a network based or host based layer 4 load balancer that
distributes incoming TCP connections across a cluster of
servers/hosts. Other clustered environments may also support the
movement of a virtual IP address dynamically from one host in the
cluster to another for high availability purposes. In summary, the
client can not pre-determine that a connection is targeting the same
host simply by matching the destination IP address for outgoing TCP
connections. Therefore it cannot pre-determine the SMC-R link that
will be used for a new TCP connection. This information will be
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
dynamically learned and the appropriate actions will be taken as the
SMC-R negotiation handshake unfolds.
On the SMC-R proposal message, the initiator (client) proposes use of
SMC-R by including its peer ID and GID and MAC addresses, as well as
the IP subnet number of the outgoing interface (if IPv4) or the IP
prefix list for the network that the proposal is sent over (if IPv6).
At this point in the flow, the client makes no local commitments of
resources for SMC-R.
When the server receives the SMC Proposal CLC message, it uses the
peer ID provided by the client plus subnet or prefix information
provided by the client, to determine if it already has a usable SMC-R
link with this SMC-R peer. If there is one or more existing SMC-R
links with this SMC-R peer, the server then decides which SMC link it
will use for this TCP connection. See subsequent sections for the
cases of reusing an existing SMC-R link or creating a parallel SMC
link group between SMC-R peers.
If this is a first contact between SMC-R peers and the server must
validate that it is on the same VLAN as the client before continuing.
For IPv4, the server does this by verifying that it has an interface
with an IP subnet number that matches the subnet number set by the
client on the SMC Proposal. For IPv6 it does this by verifying that
it is directly attached to at least one IP prefix that was listed by
the client in its SMC Proposal message.
If server agrees to use SMC-R, the server begins setup of a new SMC-R
link by allocating local QP and RMB resources (setting its QP state
to INIT) and providing its full SMC-R information in an SMC Accept
CLC message to the client over the TCP connection, along with a flag
set indicating that this is a first contact flow. If the server
cannot or does not want to do SMC-R with the client it sends an SMC
Decline CLC message to the client and the connection data may begin
flowing using normal TCP/IP flows.
3.4.1.3. Server acceptance
When the client receives the SMC Accept from the server, it uses the
combination of the first contact flag, its GID/MAC and the GID/MAC
returned by the server plus the VLAN that the connection is setting
up over and the QP number provided by the server to determine if this
is a new or existing SMC-R link.
If it is an existing SMC-R link, and the client agrees to use that
link for the TCP connection, see 3.4.2. Subsequent contact below. If
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
it is a new SMC-R link between peers that already have an SMC link,
then the server is starting a new SMC link group.
Assuming this is either a first contact between peers or the server
is starting a new SMC link group, the client now allocates local QP
and RMB resources for the SMC-R link (setting the QP state to RTR or
"ready to receive"), associates them with the server QP as learned on
the SMC Accept CLC message, and sends an SMC Confirm CLC message to
the server over the TCP connection with its SMC-R link information
included. The client also starts a timer to wait for the server to
confirm the reliable connected QP as described below.
3.4.1.4. Client confirmation
Upon receipt of the client's SMC Confirm CLC message, the server
associates its QP for this SMC-R link with the client's QP as learned
on the SMC Confirm CLC message and sets its QP state to RTS (ready to
send). Now the client and the server have reliable connected QPs.
3.4.1.5. Link (QP) confirmation
Since setting up the SMC-R link and its QPs did not require any
network flows on the RoCE fabric, the client and server must now
confirm connectivity over the RoCE fabric. To accomplish this, the
server will send a "Confirm Link" Link Layer Control (LLC) message to
the client over the RoCE fabric. The "Confirm Link" LLC message will
provide the server's MAC, GID, and QP information for the connection,
allow each partner to communicate the maximum number of links it can
tolerate in this link group (the "link limit"), and will additionally
provide two link IDs:
o a one-byte server-assigned Link number that is used by both peers
to identify the link within the link group and is only unique
within a link group.
o a four byte link user id. This opaque value is assigned by the
server for the server's local use and is provided to the client
for management purposes, for example to use in network management
displays and products.
When the server sends this message, it will set a timer for receiving
confirmation from the client.
When the client receives the server's confirmation "Confirm Link" LLC
message it will cancel the confirmation timer it set when it sent the
SMC Confirm message. It will also advance its QP state to RTS and
respond over the RoCE fabric with a "Confirm Link" response LLC
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
message, providing its MAC, GID, QP number, link limit, confirming
the one byte link number sent by the server, and providing its own
four byte link user id to the server.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X -- Server Host Y -- Client
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| PeerID = PS1 | | PeerID = PC1 |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|RToken X| |MAC MA| |MAC MB| | |
| | |GID GA| |GID GB| |Rtoken Y|
| \/ +------+ (Subnet S1) +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
|| RMB | | | | RMB | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |RNIC 3| |RNIC 4| |
| |MAC MC| |MAC MD| |
| |GID GC| |GID GD| |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
SYN TCP options(253,"SMCR")
<---------------------------------------------------------
SYN-ACK TCP options(253, "SMCR")
--------------------------------------------------------->
ACK [TCP options(254, "SMCR")]
<--------------------------------------------------------
SMC Proposal(PC1,MB,GB,S1)
<--------------------------------------------------------
SMC Accept(PS1,first contact,MA,GA,QP8,RToken=X,RMB element index)
--------------------------------------------------------->
SMC Confirm(PC1,MB,GB,QP64,RToken=Y, RMB element index)
<--------------------------------------------------------
Confirm Link (MA,GA,QP8, link lim, server's link userid, linknum)
.........................................................>
Confirm Link Rsp(MB,GB,QP64, link lim, client link userid, linknum)
<........................................................
Legend:
------------ TCP/IP and CLC flows
............ RoCE (LLC) flows
Figure 8 First contact rendezvous flows
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Technically, the data for the TCP connection could now flow over the
RoCE path. However if this is first contact, there is no alternate
for this recently established RoCE path. Since in the current
architecture there is no failover from RoCE to IP once connection
data starts flowing, this means that a failure of this path would
disrupt the TCP connection, meaning that the level of redundancy and
failover is less than that provided by IP. If the network has
alternate RoCE paths available, they would not be usable at this
point, which is an unacceptable condition
3.4.1.6. Second SMC-R link setup
Because of the unacceptable situation described above, TCP data will
not be allowed to flow on the newly established SMC-R link until a
second path has been set up, or at least attempted.
If the server has a second RNIC available on the same VLAN, it
attempts to set up the second SMC-R link over that second RNIC. If
it only has one RNIC available on the VLAN, it will attempt to set up
the second SMC-R link over that one RNIC. In the latter case, the
server is attempting to set up an asymmetric link, in case the client
does have a second RNIC on the VLAN.
In either case the server allocates a new QP over the RNIC it is
attempting to use for the second link, assigns a link number to the
new link and also creates an RToken for the RMB over this second QP
(note that this means that the first and second QP each has its own
RToken to represent the same RMB). The server provides this
information, as well as the MAC and GID of the RNIC it is attempting
set up the second link over in an "Add Link" LLC message which it
sends to the client over the SMC-R link that is already set up.
3.4.1.6.1. Client processing of "Add Link" LLC message from server
When the client receives the server's "Add Link" LLC message, it
examines the GID and MAC provided by the server to determine if the
server is attempting to use the same server-side RNIC as the existing
SMC-R link, or a different one.
If the server is attempting to use the same server-side RNIC as the
existing SMC-R link, then the client verifies that it has a second
RNIC on the same VLAN. If it does not, the client rejects the "Add
Link" request from the server, because the resulting link would be a
parallel link which is not supported within a link group. If the
client does have a second RNIC on the same VLAN, it accepts the
request and an asymmetric link will be set up.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
If the server is using a different server-side RNIC from the existing
SMC-R link then the client will accept the request and a second SMC-R
link will set up in this SMC-R link group. If the client has a
second RNIC on the same VLAN, that second RNIC will be used for the
second SMC-R link, creating symmetric links. If the client does not
have a second RNIC on the same VLAN, it will use the same RNIC as was
used for the initial SMC-R link, resulting in the setup of an
asymmetric link in the SMC-R link group.
In either case, when the client accepts the server's "Add Link"
request, it allocates a new QP on the chosen RNIC and creates an Rkey
over that new QP for the client-side RMB for the SMC link group, then
sends an "Add Link" reply LLC message to the server providing that
information as well as echoing the Link number that was set by the
server.
If the client rejects the server's "Add Link" request, it sends an
"Add Link" reply LLC message to the server with the reason code for
the rejection.
3.4.1.6.2. Server processing of "Add Link" reply LLC message from the
client
If the client sends a negative response to the server or no reply is
received, the server frees the RoCE resources it had allocated for
the new link. Having a single link in an SMC-R link group is
undesirable and the server's recovery is detailed in C.8. Failure to
add second SMC-R link to a link group.
If the client sends a positive reply to the server with
MAC/GID/QP/Rkey information, the server associates its QP for the new
SMC-R link to the QP that the client provided. Now the new SMC-R
link is in the same situation that the first was in after the client
sent its ACK packet - there is a reliable connected QP over the new
RoCE path, but there have been no RoCE flows to confirm that it's
actually usable. So at this point the client and server will
exchange "Confirm Link" LLC messages just like they did on the first
SMC-R link.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X -- Server Host Y -- Client
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| PeerID = PS1 | | PeerID = PC1 |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|RToken X| |MAC MA| |MAC MB| | |
| | |GID GA| |GID GB| |RToken Y|
| \/ +------+ +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
|| | | | | | |
|| RMB | | | | RMB | |
|| | | | | | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| /\ +------+ +------+ /\ |
| | |RNIC 3| |RNIC 4| | |
|RToken Z| |MAC MC| |MAC MD| |RToken W|
| QP 9 |GID GC| |GID GD| QP 65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
First SMC-R link setup as shown in Figure 8
<-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->
ADD link request (QP9,MC,GC, link number=2)
............................................>
ADD link response (QP65,MD,GD, link number=2)
<............................................
ADD link continuation request (RToken=Z)
............................................>
ADD link continuation response(RToken=W)
<............................................
Confirm Link(MC,GC,QP9,link number=2, link userid)
.............................................>
Confirm Link response(MD,GD,QP65,link number=2, link userid)
<.............................................
Legend:
------------ TCP/IP and CLC flows
............ RoCE (LLC) flows
Figure 9 First contact, second link setup
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
3.4.1.6.3. Exchange of Rkeys on second SMC-R link
Note that in the scenario described here, first contact, there is
only one RMB Rkey to exchange on the second SMC-R link and it is
exchanged in the Add Link Continuation request and reply. In
scenarios other than first contact, for example, adding a new SMC-R
link to a longstanding link group with multiple RMBs, additional
flows will be required to exchange additional RMB Rkeys. See
3.4.5.2.3. Adding a new SMC-R link to a link group with multiple RMBs
for more details on these flows
3.4.1.6.4. Aborting SMC-R and falling back to IP
If both partners don't provide the SMC-R TCP option during the 3 way
TCP handshake, the connection falls back to normal TCP/IP. During
the SMC-R negotiation that occurs after the 3 way TCP handshake,
either partner may break off SMC-R by sending an SMC Decline CLC
message. The SMC Decline CLC message may be sent in place of any
expected message, and may also be sent during the Confirm Link LLC
exchange if there is a failure before any application data has flowed
over the RoCE fabric. For more detail on exactly when an SMC Decline
can flow during link group setup, see C.1. SMC Decline during CLC
negotiation and C.2. SMC Decline during LLC negotiation
If this fallback to IP happens while setting up a new SMC-R link
group, the RoCE resources allocated for this SMC-R link group
relationship are torn down and it will be retried as a new SMC-R link
group next time a connection starts between these peers with SMC-R
proposed. Note that if this happens because one side doesn't support
SMC-R, there will be very little to tear down as the TCP option will
have failed to flow either on the initial SYN or the SYN-ACK, before
either side had reserved any local RoCE resources.
3.4.2. Subsequent contact
"Subsequent contact" means setting up a new TCP connection between
two peers that already have an SMC-R link group between them, and
reusing the existing SMC-R link group. In this case it is not
necessary to allocate new QPs. However it is possible that a new RMB
has been allocated for this TCP connection, if the previous TCP
connection used the last element available in the previously used
RMB, or for any other implementation-dependent reason. For this
reason, and for convenience and error checking, the same TCP option
253 followed by inline negotiation method described for initial
contact will be used for subsequent contact, but the processing
differs in some ways. That processing is described below.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
3.4.2.1. SMC-R proposal
When the client begins the inline negotiation with the server, it
does not know if this is a first contact or a subsequent contact.
The client cannot know this information until it sees the server's
peer ID to determine whether or not it already has an SMC-R link with
this peer that it can use. There are several reasons why it is not
sufficient to use the partner IP address, subnet, VLAN or other IP
information to make this determination. The most obvious reason is
distributed systems: if the server IP address is actually a virtual
IP address representing a distributed cluster, the actual host
serving this TCP connection may not be the same as the host that
served the last TCP connection to this same IP address.
After the TCP three way handshake, assuming both partners indicate
SMC-R capability, the client builds and sends the SMC Proposal CLC
message to the server in exactly the same manner as it does in the
first contact case, and in fact at this point doesn't know if it's
first contact or subsequent contact. As in the first contact case,
the client sends its Peer ID value, suggested RNIC GID/MAC, and IP
subnet or prefix information.
Upon receiving the client's proposal, the server looks up the peer ID
provided to determine if it already has a usable SMC-R link group
with this peer. If it does already have a usable SMC-R link group,
the server then needs to decide if it will use the existing SMC-R
link group, or create a new link group. For the new link group
case, see 3.4.3. First contact variation: creating a parallel link
group, below.
For this discussion assume the server decides to use the existing
SMC-R link group for the TCP connection, which is expected to be the
most common case. The server is responsible for making this decision.
Then the server needs to communicate that information to the client,
but it is not necessary to allocate, associate, and confirm QPs for
the chosen SMC-R link. All that remains to be done is to set up RMB
space for this TCP connection.
If one of the RMBs already in use for this SMC-R link group has an
available element that uses the appropriate buffer size, the server
merely chooses one for this TCP connection and then sends an SMC
Confirm CLC message, providing the full RoCE information for the
chosen SMC-R link to the client, using the same format as the SMC
Confirm CLC message described in the initial contact section above.
The server may choose to use the SMC-R link that matches the
suggested MAC/GID provided by the client on the SMC Proposal for its
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
RDMA writes but is not obligated to. The final decision on which
specific SMC-R link to assign a TCP connection to is an independent
server and client decision.
It may be necessary for the server to allocate a new RMB for this
connection. The reasons for this are implementation dependent and
could include: no available space in existing RMB or RMBs, or desire
to allocate a new RMB that uses a different buffer size from the ones
already created, or any other implementation dependent reason. In
this case the server will allocate the new RMB and then perform the
flows described in 3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to an SMC-R link
group. Once that processing is complete, the server then provides the
full RoCE information, including the new Rkey, for this connection
on an SMC Confirm CLC message to the client.
3.4.2.2. SMC-R acceptance
Upon receiving the SMC Accept CLC message from the server, the client
examines the RoCE information provided by the server to determine if
this is a first contact for a new SMC link group, or subsequent
contact for an existing SMC-R link group. It is subsequent contact
if the server side peer ID, GID, MAC and QP number provided on the
packet match a known SMC-R link, and the "first contact" flag is not
set. If this is not the case, for example the GID and MAC match but
the QP is new, then the server is creating a new, parallel SMC-R link
group and this is treated as a first contact.
A different RMB RToken does not indicate a first contact as the
server may have allocated a new RMB, or be using several RMBs for
this SMC-R link. The client needs the server's RMB information only
for its RDMA writes to the server, and since there is no requirement
for symmetric RMBs, this information is simply control information
for the RDMA writes on this SMC-R link.
The client must validate that the RMB element being provided by the
server is not in use by another TCP connection on this SMC-R link
group. This validation must validate the new <rtoken, index> across
all known <rtoken, index> on this link group. See 4.3.2. RMB element
reuse and conflict resolution for the case in which the server tries
to use an RMB element that is already in use on this link group.
Once the client has determined that this TCP connection is a
subsequent contact over an existing SMC link, it performs a similar
RMB allocation process as the server did: it either allocates an
element from an RMB already associated with this SMC-R link, or it
allocates a new RMB and associates it with this SMC-R link and then
chooses an element out of it.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
If the client allocates a new RMB for this TCP connection, it
performs the processing described in 3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to
an SMC-R link group. Once that processing is complete, the client
provides its full RoCE information for this TCP connection on an SMC
Confirm CLC message.
Because an SMC-R link with a verified connected QP already exists and
is being reused, there is no need for verification or alternate QP
selection flows or timers.
3.4.2.3. SMC-R confirmation
When the server receives the client's SMC Confirm CLC message on a
subsequent contact, it verifies the following:
o the RMB element provided by the client is not already in use by
another TCP connection on this SMC-R link group (see section
4.3.2. RMB element reuse and conflict resolution for the case in
which it is).
o The MAC/GID/QP info provided by the client matches an active link
within the link group. The client is free to select any valid /
active link. The client is not required to select the same link as
the server.
If this validation passes, the server stores the client's RMB
information for this connection and the RoCE setup of the TCP
connection is complete.
3.4.2.4. TCP data flow race with SMC Confirm CLC message
On a subsequent contact TCP/IP connection, a peer may send data as
soon as it has received the peer RMB information for the connection.
There are no additional RoCE confirmation flows, since the QPs on the
SMC link are already reliably connected and verified.
In the majority of cases the first data will flow from the client to
the server. The client must send the SMC Confirm CLC message before
sending any TCP data over the chosen SMC-R link, however the client
need not wait for confirmation of this message, and in fact there
will be no such confirmation. Since the server is required to have
the RMB fully set up and ready to receive data from the client before
sending SMC Accept CLC message, the client can begin sending data
over the SMC-R link immediately upon completing the send of the SMC
Confirm CLC message.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
It is possible that data from the client will arrive into the server
side RMB before the SMC Confirm CLC message from the client has been
processed. In this case the server must handle this race condition,
and not provide the arrived TCP data to the socket application until
the SMC Confirm CLC message has been received and fully processed,
opening the socket.
If the server has initial data to send to the client which is not a
response to the client (this case should be rare), it can send the
data immediately upon receiving and processing the SMC Confirm CLC
message from the client. The client must have opened the TCP socket
to the client application upon sending of SMC Confirm CLC message so
the client will be ready to process data from the server.
3.4.3. First contact variation: creating a parallel link group
Recall that parallel SMC-R links within an SMC-R link group are not
supported. These are multiple SMC-R links within a link group that
use the same network path. However, multiple SMC-R link groups
between the same peers are supported. This means that if multiple
SMC-R links over the same RoCE path are desired, it is necessary to
use multiple SMC-R link groups. While not a recommended practice,
this could be done for platform specific reasons, like QP separation
of different workloads. Only the server can drive the creation of
multiple SMC-R link groups between peers.
At a high level, when the server decides to create an additional SMC-
R link group with a client it already has an SMC-R link group with,
the flows are basically the same as the normal "first contact" case
described above. The following provides more detail and
clarification of processing in this case.
When the server receives the SMC Proposal CLC message from the client
and using the GID/MAC info determines that it already has an SMC-R
link group with this client, the server can either reuse the existing
SMC-R link group (detailed in 3.4.2. Subsequent contact above) or it
can create a new SMC-R link group in addition to the existing one.
If the server decides to create a new SMC-R link group, it does the
same processing it would have done for first contact: allocate QP and
RMB resources as well as alternate QP resources, and communicate the
QP and RMB information to the client on the SMC Accept CLC message
with the "first contact" flag set.
When the client receives the server's SMC Accept CLC message with the
new QP information and the "first contact" flag, it knows the server
is creating a new SMC-R link group even though it already has an SMC-
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
R link group with the server. In this case the client will also
allocate a new QP for this new SMC link and allocate an RMB for this
link and generate an Rkey for it.
Note that multiple SMC-R link groups between the same peers must
access different RMB resources, so new RMBs will be required. Using
the same RMBs that are in use in another SMC-R link group is not
permitted.
The client then associates its new QP with the server's new QP and
sends its SMC Confirm CLC message back to the server providing the
new QP/RMB information and sets its confirmation timer for the new
SMC-R link.
When the server receives the client's SMC Confirm CLC message it
associates its QP with the client's QP as learned on the SMC Confirm
CLC message and sends a confirmation LLC message. The rest of the
flow, with the confirmation QP and setup of additional SMC-R links,
unfolds just like the first contact case.
3.4.4. Normal SMC-R link termination
The normal sockets API trigger points are used by the SMC-R layer to
initiate SMC-R connection termination flows. The main design point
for SMC-R normal connection flows is to use the SMC-R protocol to
first shutdown the SMC-R connection and free up any SMC-R RDMA
resources and then allow the normal TCP connection termination
protocol (i.e. FIN processing) to drive cleanup of the TCP connection
that exists on the IP fabric. This design point is very important in
ensuring that RDMA resources such as the RMBEs are only freed and
reused when both SMC-R end points are completely done with their RDMA
Write operations to the partner's RMBE.
When the last TCP connection over an SMC-R link group terminates, the
link group can be terminated. Similar to creation of SMC-R links and
link groups, the primary responsibility for determining that normal
termination is needed and initiating it lies with the server.
Implementations may opt to set timers to keep SMC-R link groups up
for a specified time after the last TCP connection ends, to avoid
churn in cases when TCP connections come and go regularly.
The link or link group may also be terminated as a result of an
operator initiated command. This command can be entered at either
the client or the server. If entered at the client, the client
requests that the server perform link or link group termination, and
the responsibility for doing so ultimately lies with the server.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
When the server determines that the SMC-R link group is to be
terminated, it sends a DELETE LINK LLC message to the client, with a
flag set indicating that all links in the link group are to be
terminated. After receiving confirmation from the adapter that the
DELETE LINK LLC message has been sent, the server can clean up its
end of the link group (QPs, RMBs, etc). Upon receipt of the DELETE
LINK message from the server, the client must immediately comply and
clean up its end of the link group. Any TCP connections that the
client believes to be active on the link group must be immediately
terminated.
The client can request that the server delete the link group as well.
The client does this by sending a DELETE LINK message to the server
indicating that cleanup of all links is requested. The server must
comply by sending a DELETE LINK to the client and processing as
described above. If there are TCP connections active on the link
group when the server receives this request, they are immediately
terminated by sending a RST flow over the IP fabric.
3.4.5. Link group management flows
3.4.5.1. Adding and deleting links in an SMC-R link group
The server has the lead role in managing the composition of the link
group. Links are added to link group by the server. The client may
notify the server of new conditions that may result in the server
adding a new link, but the server is ultimately responsible. In
general links are deleted from the link group by the server, however
in certain error cases the client may inform the server that a link
must be deleted and treat it as deleted without waiting for action
from the server. These flows are detailed in the following sections
3.4.5.1.1. Server initiated Add Link processing
As described in previous sections, the server initiates an Add Link
exchange to create redundancy in a newly created link group. Once a
link group is established the server may also initiate Add Link for
other reasons, including:
o Availability of additional resources on the server host to support
an additional SMC-R link. This may include the provisioning of an
additional RNIC, more storage becoming available to support
additional QP resources, operator command, or any other
implementation dependent reason. Note that, to be available for
an existing link group, a new RNIC must be attached to the same
RoCE VLAN that the link group is using.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Receipt of notification from the client that additional resources
on the client are available to support an additional SMC-R link.
See 3.4.5.1.2. Client initiated Add Link processing.
Server initiated Add Link processing in an established SMC-R link
group is the same as the Add Link processing described in 3.4.1.6.
Second SMC-R link setup with the following changes:
o If an asymmetric SMC-R link already exists in the link group a
second asymmetric link will not be created. Only one asymmetric
link is permitted in a link group.
o TCP data flow on already existing link(s) in the link group is not
halted or otherwise affected during the process of setting up the
additional link.
In no case will the server initiate Add Link processing if the link
group already has the maximum number of links negotiated by the
partners.
3.4.5.1.2. Client initiated Add Link processing
If an additional RNIC becomes available for an existing SMC-R link
group on the client's side, the client notifies the server by sending
an Add Link request LLC message to the server. Unlike an Add Link
request sent by the server to the client, this Add Link request
merely informs the server that the client has a new RNIC. If the
link group lacks redundancy, or has redundancy only on an asymmetric
link with a single RNIC on the client side, the server must initiate
an Add Link exchange in response to this message, to create or
improve the link group's redundancy.
If the link group already has symmetric link redundancy but has fewer
than the negotiated maximum number of links, the server may respond
by initiating an Add Link exchange to create a new link using the
client's new resource but is not required to.
If the link group already has the negotiated maximum number of links,
the server must ignore the client's Add Link request LLC message.
Because the server is not required to respond to the client's Add
Link LLC message in all cases, the client must not wait for a
response or throw an error if one does not come.
3.4.5.1.3. Server initiated Delete Link Processing
Reasons that a server may delete a link include:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o The link has not been used for TCP connections for an
implementation defined time interval, and deleting the link will
not cause the link group to lack redundancy
o An error in resources supporting the link. These may include but
are not limited to: RNIC errors, QP errors, software errors
o The RNIC supporting this SMC-R link is being taken down, either
because of an error case or because of an operator or software
command.
If a link being deleted is supporting TCP connections, and there are
one or more surviving links in the link group, the TCP connections
are moved to the surviving links. For more information on this
processing see 2.3. SMC-R resilience and load balancing.
The server deletes a link from the link group by sending a Delete
Link request LLC message to the client over any of the usable links
in the link group. Because the Delete Link LLC message specifies
which link is to be deleted, it may flow over any link in the link
group. The server must not clean up its RoCE resources for the link
until the client responds.
The client responds to the server's Delete Link request LLC message
by sending the server a Delete Link response LLC message. The client
must respond positively; it cannot decline to delete the link. Once
the server has received the client's Delete Link response, both sides
may clean up their resources for the link.
Positive write completion or other indication from the RNIC on the
client's side is sufficient to indicate to the client that the server
has received the Delete Link response.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R Link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 9 |
|RToken X| |Failed|<--X----X----X----X-->| | |
| | | | | | |
| \/ +------+ +------+ |
|+--------+ | | |
|| deleted| | | |
|| RMB | | | |
|| | | | |
|+--------+ | | |
| /\ +------+ +------+ |
|RToken Z| | | SMC-R Link 2 | | |
| | |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4| |
| QP 64| | | | QP 65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
DELETE LINK(Request, link number = 1,
................................................>
reason code = RNIC failure)
DELETE LINK(Response, link number = 1)
<................................................
(note, architecturally this exchange can flow over either
SMC-R link but most likely flows over link 2 since
the RNIC for link 1 has failed)
Figure 10 Server initiated Delete Link flow
3.4.5.1.4. Client initiated Delete Link request
The client may request that the server delete a link for the same
reasons that the server may delete a link, except for inactivity
timeout.
Because the client depends on the server to delete links, there are
two types of delete requests from client to server:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Orderly: the client is requesting that the server delete the link
when able. This would result from an operator command to bring
down the RNIC or some other nonfatal reason. In this case the
server is required to delete the link, but may not do it right
away.
o Disorderly: the server must delete the link right away, because
the client has experienced a fatal error with the link.
In either case the server responds by initiating a Delete Link
exchange with the client as described in the previous section. The
difference between the two is whether the server must do so
immediately or can delay for an opportunity to gracefully delete the
link.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R Link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 9 |
|RToken X| | |<---X--X--X--X--X--X->|Failed| |
| | | | | | |
| \/ +------+ +------+ |
|+--------+ | | |
|| deleted| | | |
|| RMB | | | |
|| | | | |
|+--------+ | | |
| /\ +------+ +------+ |
|RToken Z| | | SMC-R Link 2 | | |
| | |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4| |
| QP 64| | | | QP 65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
DELETE LINK(Request, link number = 1, disorderly,
<...............................................
reason code = RNIC failure)
DELETE LINK(Request, link number = 1,
................................................>
reason code = RNIC failure)
DELETE LINK(Response, link number = 1)
<................................................
(note, architecturally this exchange can flow over either
SMC-R link but most likely flows over link 2 since
the RNIC for link 1 has failed)
Figure 11 Client-initiated Delete Link
3.4.5.2. Managing multiple Rkeys over multiple SMC-R links in a link
group
After the initial contact sequence completes and the number of TCP
connections increases it is possible that the SMC peers could add
additional RMBs to the Link Group. Recall that each peer
independently manages its RMBs. Also recall that an RMB's RToken is
specific to a QP, which means that when there are multiple SMC-R
links in a link group, each RMB accessed with the link group requires
a separate RToken for each SMC-R link in the group.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Each RMB that is added to a link must be added to all links within
the Link Group. The set of RMBs created for the Link is called the
"RToken Set". The RTokens must be exchanged with the peer. As RMBs
are added and deleted, the RToken Set must remain in sync.
3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to an SMC-R link group
A new RMB can be added to an SMC-R link group on either the client or
the server side. When an additional RMB is added to an existing SMC-
R link group, that RMB must be associated with the QPs for each link
in the link group. Therefore when an RMB is added to an SMC-R link
group, its RMB RToken for each SMC-R link's QP must be communicated
to the peer.
The tokens for a new RMB added to an existing SMC-R link group are
communicated using "Confirm Rkey" LLC messages, as shown in Figure
12. The RToken set is specified as pairs: an SMC link number, paired
with the new RMB's RToken over that SMC Link. To preserve failover
capability, any TCP connection that uses a newly added RMB cannot go
active until all RTokens for the RMB have been communicated for all
the links in the link group.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R Link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 9 |
|RToken X| | |<-------------------->| | |
| | | | | | |
| \/ +------+ +------+ |
|+--------+ | | |
|| new | | | |
|| RMB | | | |
|| | | | |
|+--------+ | | |
| /\ +------+ +------+ |
|RToken Z| | | SMC-R Link 2 | | |
| | |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4| |
| QP 64| | | | QP 65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
CONFIRM RKEY(Request, Add,
................................................>
RToken set((Link 1,RToken X),(Link2,RToken Z)))
CONFIRM RKEY(Response, Add,
<................................................
RToken set((Link 1,RToken X),(Link2,RToken Z)))
(note, this exchange can flow over either SMC-R link)
Figure 12 Add RMB to existing link group
Implementations may choose to proactively add RMBs to link groups in
anticipation of need. For example, an implementation may add a new
RMB when all of its existing RMBs are over a certain threshold
percentage used.
A new RMB may also be added to an existing link group on an as needed
basis. For example, when a new TCP connection is added to the link
group but there are no available RMB elements. In this case the CLC
exchange is paused while the peer that requires the new RMB adds it.
An example of this is illustrated in figure 13.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X -- Server Host Y -- Client
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| PeerID = PS1 | | PeerID = PC1 |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|RToken X| |MAC MA|<-------------------->|MAC MB| | |
| | |GID GA| |GID GB| |RTokenY2|
| \/ +------+ +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
|| | | SUBNET S1 | | New | |
|| RMB | | | | RMB | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| /\ +------+ +------+ /\ |
| | |RNIC 3| SMC-R link 2 |RNIC 4| |RTokenW2|
| | |MAC MC|<-------------------->|MAC MD| | |
| QP 9 |GID GC| |GID GD| QP65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
SYN / SYN-ACK / ACT TCP 3-way handshake with TCP option
<--------------------------------------------------------->
SMC Proposal(PC1,MB,GB,S1)
<--------------------------------------------------------
SMC Accept(PS1,not 1st contact,MA,GA,QP8,RToken=X,RMB elem index)
--------------------------------------------------------->
Confirm Rkey(Request, Add,
<........................................................
RToken set((Link1, RToken Y2),{Link2, RToken W2)))
Confirm Rkey(Response, Add,
........................................................>
RToken set((Link1, RToken Y2),{Link2, RToken W2)))
SMC Confirm(PC1,MB,GB,QP64,RToken=Y2, RMB element index)
<--------------------------------------------------------
Legend:
------------ TCP/IP and CLC flows
............ RoCE (LLC) flows
Figure 13 Client adds RMB during TCP connection setup
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
3.4.5.2.2. Deleting an RMB from an SMC-R link group
Either peer can delete one of its RMBs as long as it is not being
used for any TCP connections. Ideally an SMC-R host would use a
timer to avoid freeing an RMB immediately after the last TCP
connection stops using it, to keep the RMB available for later TCP
connections and avoid thrashing with addition and deletion of RMBs.
Once an SMC-R peer decides to delete an RMB, it sends a CONFIRM
RKEY(Delete) LLC message to its peer. It can then free the RMB once
it receives a response from the peer. Multiple RMBs can be deleted
in a CONFIRM RKEY(delete) exchange.
Host X Host Y
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R Link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 9 |
|RToken X| | |<-------------------->| | |
| | | | | | |
| \/ +------+ +------+ |
|+--------+ | | |
|| deleted| | | |
|| RMB | | | |
|| | | | |
|+--------+ | | |
| /\ +------+ +------+ |
|RToken Z| | | SMC-R Link 2 | | |
| | |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4| |
| QP 9 | | | | |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
CONFIRM RKEY(Request, Delete,
................................................>
RToken set((Link 1,RToken X),(Link2,RToken Z)))
CONFIRM RKEY(Response, Delete,
<................................................
RToken set((Link 1,RToken X),(Link2,RToken Z)))
(note, this exchange can flow over either SMC-R link)
Figure 14 Delete RMB from SMC-R link group
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
3.4.5.2.3. Adding a new SMC-R link to a link group with multiple RMBs
When a new SMC-R link is added to an existing link group, there could
be multiple RMBs on each side already associated with the link group.
There could also be a different number of RMBs on one side as on the
other, because each peer manages its RMBs independently. Each of
these RMBs will require a new RToken to be used on the new SMC-R
link, and then those new RTokens must be communicated to the peer.
This requires two-way communication as the server will have to
communicate its RTokens to the client and vice versa.
RTokens are communicated between peers in pairs. Each RToken pair
consists of:
o The RToken for the RMB, as is already known on an existing SMC-R
link in the link group
o The RToken for the same RMB, to be used on the new SMC-R link.
These pairs are required to ensure that each peer knows which RTokens
across QPs are equivalent.
The "Add Link" request and response LLC messages do not have room to
contain any RToken pairs. "Add Link continuation" LLC messages are
used to communicate these pairs, as shown in Figure 15. The "Add
Link Continuation" LLC messages are sent on the same SMC-R link that
the "Add Link" LLC messages were sent over, and in both the "Add
Link" and the "Add Link Continuation" LLC messages, the first RToken
in each RToken pair will be the RToken for the RMB as known on the
SMC-R link that the LLC message is being sent over.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X -- Server Host Y -- Client
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| PeerID = PS1 | | PeerID = PC1 |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
|Rkey Set| |MAC MA| |MAC MB| |Rkey set|
|X,Y,Z | |GID GA| |GID GB| |Q,R,S,T |
| \/ +------+ +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
|| 3 RMBs | | | | 4 RMBs | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| /\ +------+ +------+ /\ |
|Rkey set| |RNIC 3| |RNIC 4| | Rkey set|
|U,V,W | |MAC MC| |MAC MD| | L,M,N,P |
| QP 9 |GID GC| |GID GD| QP 65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
ADD link request (QP9,MC,GC, link number=2)
............................................>
ADD link response (QP65,MD,GD, link number=2)
<............................................
ADD link continuation req(RToken Pairs=((X,U),(Y,V),(Z,W)))
............................................>
ADD link continuation rsp(RToken Pairs=((Q,L),(R,M),(S,N),(T,P)))
<.............................................
Confirm Link Req/Rsp exchange on link 2
<.............................................>
Legend:
------------ TCP/IP and CLC flows
............ RoCE (LLC) flows
Figure 15 Exchanging Rkeys when a new link is added to a link group
3.4.5.3. Serialization of LLC exchanges, and collisions
LLC flows can be divided into two main groups for serializaion
considerations.
The first group is LLC messages that are independent and can flow at
any time. These are one-time, unsolicited messages that either do
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
not have a required response, or that have a simple response that
does not interfere with the operations of another group of messages.
These messages are:
o TEST LINK from either the client or the server: This message
requires a TEST LINK response to be returned, but does not affect
the configuration of the link group or the Rkeys.
o ADD LINK from the client to the server: This message is provided
as an "FYI" to the server to let it know that the client has an
additional RNIC available. The server is not required to act upon
or respond to this message.
o DELETE_LINK from the client to the server: This message informs
the server that the client has either experienced an error or
problem that requires a link or link group to be terminated, or
that an operator has commanded that a link or link group be
terminated. The server does not respond directly to the message,
rather it initiates a DELETE LINK exchange as a result of
receiving it.
o DELETE LINK from the server to the client with the "delete entire
link group" flag set: This message informs the client that the
entire link group is being deleted.
The second group is LLC messages that are part of an exchange of LLC
messages that affects link group configuration that must complete
before another exchange of LLC messages that affects links group
configuration can be processed. When a peer knows that one of these
exchanges is in progress, it must not start another exchange. These
exchanges are:
o ADD LINK / ADD LINK response / ADD LINK CONTINUATION / ADD LINK
CONTINUATION response / CONFIRM LINK / CONFIRM LINK RESPONSE:
This exchange, by adding a new link, changes the configuration of
the link group.
o DELETE LINK / DELETE LINK response initiated by the server: This
exchange, by deleting a link, changes the configuration of the
link group.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o CONFIRM RKEY / CONFIRM RKEY response: This exchange changes the
RMB configuration of the link group. . RKeys can not change while
links are being added or deleted (while ADD or DELETE LINK is in
progress). However, CONFIRM RKEY is unique in that both the client
and server can independently manage (add or remove) their own
RMBs. This allows each peer to concurrently change their RKeys
and therefore concurrently send CONFIRM RKEY requests. The
concurrent CONFIRM RKEY requests can be independently processed
and does not represent a collision
Because the server is in control of the configuration of the link
group, many timing windows and collisions are avoided but there are
still some that must be handled.
3.4.5.3.1. Collisions with ADD LINK / CONFIRM LINK exchange
Colliding LLC message: TEST LINK
Action to resolve: Send immediate TEST LINK reply
Colliding LLC Message: ADD LINK from client to server
Action to resolve: Server ignores the ADD LINK message. When
client receives server's ADD LINK, client will consider that
message to be in response to its ADD LINK message and the flow
works. Since both client and server know not to start this
exchange if an ADD LINK operation is already underway, this can
only occur if the client sends this message before receiving the
server's ADD LINK and this message crosses with the server's ADD
LINK message, therefore the server's ADD LINK arrives at the
client immediately after the client sent this message.
Colliding LLC Message: DELETE LINK from client to server, specific
link specified
Action to resolve: Server queues the DELETE link message and
processes after the ADD LINK exchange completes. If it is an
orderly link termination, it can wait until after this exchange
continues. If it is disorderly and the link affected is the one
that the current exchange is using, the server will discover the
outage when a message in this exchange fails.
Colliding LLC Message: DELETE LINK from client to server, entire link
group to be deleted
Action to resolve: Immediately clean up the link group
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Colliding LLC message: CONFIRM RKEY from the client
Action to resolve: Send negative CONFIRM_RKEY response to the
client. Once the current exchange finishes, client will have to
recompute its Rkey set to include the new link, and start a new
CONFIRM RKEY exchange.
3.4.5.3.2. Collisions during DELETE LINK exchange
Colliding LLC Message: TEST LINK from either peer
Action to resolve: Send immediate TEST LINK response
Colliding LLC message: ADD LNK from client to server
Action to resolve: Server queues the ADD LINK and processes it
after the current exchange completes
Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from client to server (specific
link)
Action to resolve: Server queues the DELETE link message and
processes after the current exchange completes. If it is an
orderly link termination, it can wait until after this exchange
continues. If it is disorderly and the link affected is the one
that the current exchange is using, the server will discover the
outage when a message in this exchange fails
Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from either client or server,
deleting the entire link group
Action to resolve: immediately clean up the link group
Colliding LLC message: CONFIRM_RKEY from client to server
Action to resolve: Send negative CONFIRM_RKEY response to the
client. Once the current exchange finishes, client will have to
recompute its Rkey set to include the new link, and start a new
CONFIRM RKEY exchange
3.4.5.3.3. Collisions during CONFIRM_RKEY exchange
Colliding LLC Message: TEST LINK
Action to resolve: Send immediate TEST LINK reply
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Colliding LLC message: ADD LINK from client to server
Action to resolve: Queue the ADD LINK and process it after the
current exchange completes
Colliding LLC message: ADD LINK from server to client (CONFIRM RKEY
exchange was initiated by the client and it crossed with the server
initiating an ADD LINK exchange)
Action to resolve: Process the ADD LINK. Client will receive a
negative CONFIRM RKEY from the server and will have to redo this
CONFIRM RKEY exchange after the ADD LINK exchange completes.
Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from client to server, specific
link to be deleted (CONFIRM RKEY exchange was initiated by the server
and it crossed with the client's DELETE LINK request
Action to resolve: Server queues the DELETE link message and
processes after the ADD LINK exchange completes. If it is an
orderly link termination, it can wait until after this exchange
continues. If it is disorderly and the link affected is the one
that the current exchange is using, the server will discover the
outage when a message in this exchange fails.
Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from server to client, specific
link deleted (CONFIRM RKEY exchange was initiated by the client and
it crossed with the server's DELETE LINK)
Action to resolve: Process the DELETE LINK. Client will receive a
negative CONFIRM RKEY from the server and will have to redo this
CONFIRM RKEY exchange after the ADD LINK exchange completes.
Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from either client or server,
entire link group deleted
Action to resolve: immediately clean up the link group
Colliding LLC message: CONFIRM LINK from the peer that did not start
the current CONFIRM LINK exchange
Action to resolve: Queue the request and process it after the
current exchange completes.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4. SMC-R memory sharing architecture
4.1. RMB element allocation considerations
Each TCP connection using SMC-R must be allocated a RMBE by each SMC-
R peer. This allocation is performed by each end point independently
to allow each end point to select an RMBE that best matches the
characteristics on its TCP socket end point. The RMBE associated with
a TCP socket endpoint must have a Receive buffer that is at least as
large as the TCP receive buffer size in effect for that connection.
The receive buffer size can be determined by what is specified
explicitly by the application using setsockopt() or implicitly via
the system configured default value. This will allow sufficient data
to be RDMA written by the peer SMC-R host to fill an entire receive
buffer size worth of data on a given data flow. Given that each RMB
must have fixed length RMBEs this implies that an SMC-R end point may
need to maintain multiple RMBs of various sizes for SMC-R connections
on a given SMC link and can then select an RMBE that most closely
fits a connection.
4.2. Format of an RMBE control area
An illustration of the RMBE control area is shown in Figure 16 below:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
0 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Beginning eye catcher (0xD9D4C2C5) |
4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Peer Conn State| Reserved for Future Use |
8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for Future Use |
12 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for Future Use |
16 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer producer cursor |
20 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer producer cursor indicators |
24 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer consumer cursor |
28 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer consumer cursor indicators |
32 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
36 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
40 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
44 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
48 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
52 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
56 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for future use |
60 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Trailing eye catcher (0xD9D4C2C6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16 RMBE Control Area Format
o Beginning eye catcher (bytes 0-3): A 4 byte identifier of the
beginning of the RMBE control area. Has the fixed value of
0xD9D4C2C5 which is the text string "RMBE" in EBCDIC (IBM-1047)
encoding. This eye catcher serves as a diagnostics aid for
detecting accidental overlays on the RMB. Set by RMBE owner
during initialization. Checked by RMBE owner every time the
element is referenced.
o Peer Conn State (byte 4): A 1 byte field that contains flags that
describe the state of the peer SMC-R connection.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Bit 0 (1xxx xxxx) Sending done indicator: Set by peer when it
is done writing new data into this RMBE's data area. Note that
the peer may still make future updates to Peer Consumer
related fields in this RMBE. This bit is updated via a unique
RDMA Write immediate operation (with notification) after all
updates to this RMBE have been made (e.g. Peer Producer
cursor).
o Bit 1 (x1xx xxxx) Peer Closed Connection indicator: Set by
peer when it is completely done with this connection and will
no longer be making any updates to this RMBE. This bit is
updated via a unique RDMA Write immediate operation (with
notification) after all updates to this RMBE have been made
(e.g. Peer Producer/Consumer cursors).
o Bit 2 (xx1x xxxx) Peer Abnormal Close indicator: Set by peer
when the connection is abnormally terminated (for example, the
TCP connection was Reset). When set it indicates that the peer
is completely done with this connection and will no longer be
making any updates to this RMBE. It also indicates that the
RMBE owner must flush any remaining data on this connection
and surface an error return code to any outstanding socket
APIs on this connection (same processing as receiving an RST
segment on a TCP connection). This bit is updated via a unique
RDMA Write immediate operation (with notification) after all
updates to this RMBE have been made (e.g. Peer
Producer/Consumer cursors)
o Bits 3-7: Reserved for future use
o Peer producer cursor (bytes 16-19): Unsigned, 4 byte integer that
is a wrapping offset into this RMBE data area. Points to the next
byte of data to be written. Can advance up to the Peer Consumer
Cursor in the partner's RMBE. When urgent data present indicator
is on then points one byte beyond the last byte of urgent data.
o Peer producer cursor indicators (bytes 20-23): 4 byte field
containing state information related to the Peer producer cursor.
o Producer Flags (Byte 20): 1 byte of flags related to the peer's
current data stream sending state.
. Bit 0 (1xxx xxxx) Writer blocked indicator: Peer is
blocked for writing, requires explicit notification when
receive buffer space is available.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
. Bit 1 (x1xx xxxx) Urgent data pending: Peer has urgent
data pending for this connection
. Bit 2 (xx1x xxxx) Urgent data present: Indicates that
urgent data present in the RMBE data area, the producer
cursor points to one byte beyond the last byte urgent
data.
. Bit 3 (xxx1 xxxx) Consumer cursor update requested:
Indicates that a consumer cursor update is requested
bypassing any window size optimization algorithms.
. Bits 4-7: Reserved for future use
o Producer window wrap sequence number (bytes 22-23): 2 byte
unsigned integer. It is wrapping counter incremented by the
producer whenever the data written into this RMBE receiver
buffer causes a wrap (i.e. the producer cursor wraps). This is
used by the receiver to determine when new data is available
even though the cursors appear unchanged such as when a full
window size write is completed (Peer Producer cursor of this
RMBE = Local Peer Consumer Cursor) or in scenarios where the
Peer Producer Cursor in this RMBE < Local Peer Consumer
Cursor).
o Peer consumer cursor (bytes 24-27): Unsigned 4 byte integer that
is a wrapping offset into the peer's RMBE data area. Points to
the offset of the next byte of data to be consumed by the peer in
its own RMBE. The RMBE owner cannot write beyond this cursor into
the peer's RMBE without causing data loss.
o Peer consumer cursor indicators (bytes 28-31): 4 bytes of
information indicating the state of the receiver data stream by
the peer consumer.
o Consumer window wrap sequence number (Bytes 28-29): 2 byte
unsigned integer that mirrors the value of the Producer window
wrap sequence number when the last read from this RMBE
occurred. Used as an indicator on how far along the consumer
is in reading data (i.e. processed last wrap point or not).
The producer side can use this indicator to detect whether
more data can be written to the partner in full window write
scenarios (where the Peer Producer Cursor in the partner RMBE
= Peer Consumer Cursor on the remote RMBE). In this scenario
if the consumer sequence number equals the local producer
sequence number the producer knows that more data can be
written.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Bytes 30-31: Reserved for future use.
o Trailing eye catcher (bytes 60-63): A 4 byte identifier of the
ending of the RMBE control area. Has the fixed value of 0xD9D4C2C6
which is the text string "RMBF" in EBCDIC (IBM-1047) encoding.
This eye catcher serves as a diagnostics aid for detecting
accidental overlays on the RMB. Set by RMBE owner during
initialization. Checked by RMBE owner every time the element is
referenced.
Conn State (byte 4): A 1 byte field that contains flags that describe
the state of the peer SMC-R connection.
Bit 0 (1xxx xxxx) Sending done indicator: Set by peer when it is
done writing new data into this RMBE's data area. Note that the peer
may still make future updates to Peer Consumer related fields in this
RMBE. This bit is updated via a unique RDMA Write immediate operation
(with notification) after all updates to this RMBE have been made
(e.g. Peer Producer cursor).
Bit 1 (x1xx xxxx) Peer Closed Connection indicator: Set by peer when
it is completely done with this connection and will no longer be
making any updates to this RMBE. This bit is updated via a unique
RDMA Write immediate operation (with notification) after all updates
to this RMBE have been made (e.g. Peer Producer/Consumer cursors).
Bit 2 (xx1x xxxx) Peer Abnormal Close indicator: Set by peer when
the connection is abnormally terminated (for example, the TCP
connection was Reset). When set it indicates that the peer is
completely done with this connection and will no longer be making any
updates to this RMBE. It also indicates that the RMBE owner must
flush any remaining data on this connection and surface an error
return code to any outstanding socket APIs on this connection (same
processing as receiving an RST segment on a TCP connection). This bit
is updated via a unique RDMA Write immediate operation (with
notification) after all updates to this RMBE have been made (e.g.
Peer Producer/Consumer cursors)
Bits 3-7: Reserved for future use
Peer producer cursor (bytes 16-19): Unsigned, 4 byte integer that is
a wrapping offset into this RMBE data area. Points to the next byte
of data to be written.
Can advance up to the Peer Consumer Cursor in the partner's RMBE.
When urgent data present indicator is on then points one byte beyond
the last byte of urgent data.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.3. Use of RMBEs
4.3.1. Initializing and accessing RMBEs
The RMBE control area is initialized by the RMB owner prior to
assigning it to a specific TCP connection and communicating its RMB
index to the SMC-R partner. After an RMBE index is communicated to
the SMC-R partner the RMBE can only be referenced in "read only mode"
by the owner and all updates to it are performed by the remote SMC-R
partner via RDMA write operations.
Initialization of an RMBE must include the following:
o Zeroing out the entire RMBE, including the Control Area and the
Receive Buffer area. Zeroing out the Receive buffer area helps
minimize data integrity issues (e.g. data from a previous
connection somehow being presented to the current connection).
o Setting the beginning and trailing RMBE eye catchers. These eye
catchers play an important role in helping detect accidental
overlays of the RMBE Control or Receive buffer areas. The RMB
owner must always validate these eye catchers before each new
reference to the RMBE. If the eye catchers are found to be
corrupted the local host must reset the TCP connection associated
with this RMBE and log the appropriate diagnostic information.
Rules for local reads and RDMA writes to the RMBE control area:
o Atomic RDMA writes and local reads of related RMBE Control area
fields: Certain fields in the RMBE must be updated and read in an
atomic fashion. For example, the Peer Producer Cursor and the Peer
Producer Cursor Indicator fields must be written in the same RDMA
write operation as they have a direct relationship to each other.
They must also be read atomically on the local host to ensure a
consistent view of these fields. This can be done via any
operating system specific instruction that allows the atomic
fetching of this double word field. Other fields that need to be
fetched atomically include the Peer Consumer Cursor and Peer
Consumer Cursor Indicator fields.
o Any changes to the Peer Connection State flags must be performed
using a unique RDMA write operation following any other RDMA write
operations that update other sections of the RMBE Control area
(e.g. Producer and Consumer cursors). This will ensure that RMBE
owner can have a consistent read view of the Peer Connection State
flags in relation to other fields in the control area.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Reserved areas within the RMBE control area: Writers must ensure
that reserved areas (bits, bytes, etc.) contain zeroes on any RDMA
Writes. The RMBE owner must not validate that any reserved fields
(bits, bytes, words, etc.) contain zeroes. This will facilitate
future additions to the RMBE control area without requiring
tightly coupled coordination between remote SMC-R peers. The
general strategy for adding new fields into the RMBE control area
is to introduce a new capabilities flags field in the RMBE that
would indicate the presence of new fields in the RMBE control
area. The RDMA writer would turn on the capability flag
associated with a new field on the 1st RDMA Write to the control
area. The RMBE owner (i.e. reader) could then interrogate the
capability flag (if it has support for the new feature) prior to
referencing the new RMBE field. This allows for loosely coupled
introduction of new RMBE features/fields in the future.
4.3.2. RMB element reuse and conflict resolution
RMB elements can be reused once their associated TCP and SMC-R
connections are terminated. Under normal and abnormal SMC-R
connection termination processing both SMC-R peers must explicitly
acknowledge that they are done using an RMBE before that element can
be freed and reassigned to another SMC-R connection instance. For
more details on SMC-R connection termination refer to section 4.6.
However, there are some error scenarios where this 2 way explicit
acknowledgement may not be completed. In these scenarios (mentioned
explicitly elsewhere in this document) an RMBE owner may chose to re-
assign this RMBE to a new SMC-R connection instance on this SMC link
group. When this occurs the partner SMC-R peer must detect this
condition during SMC-R rendezvous processing when presented with an
RMBE that it believes is already in use for a different SMC-R
connection. In this case, the SMC-R peer must abort the existing
SMC-R connection associated with this RMBE. The abort processing
Resets the TCP connection (if it is still active) but it must not
attempt to perform any RDMA writes to this RMBE and must also ignore
any data sitting in the local RMBE associated with the existing
connection. It then proceeds to free up the local RMBE and notify
the local application that the connection is being abnormally reset.
The remote SMC-R peer then proceeds to normal processing for this new
SMC-R connection with one key additional requirement. It must use an
RDMA Write operation to clear the contents of the peer's RMBE control
area (everything other than the eye catchers). The reason for this
is to ensure that there is no latent control data in the RMBE from
the previous instance of the SMC-R connection that was using it.
There is a small window between the time when an SMC-R host re-
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
allocates an RMBE that has not gone through the complete SMC-R
connection termination process and the time that the remote hosts
notices that this RMBE is being reclaimed for a new connection - this
re-initialization processing for the control area by the peer closes
this window.
4.4. SMC-R protocol considerations
The following sections describe considerations for the SMC-R protocol
as compared to the TCP protocol.
4.4.1. SMC-R protocol optimized window size updates
An SMC-R receiver host uses the Peer Consumer Cursor fields in the
sender's RMBE to convey the progress that the receiving application
has made in consuming the sent data. The difference between the Peer
Producer Cursor and the associated Peer Consumer Cursor indicates the
window size available for the sender to write into. This is somewhat
similar to TCP window update processing and therefore has some
similar considerations, such as silly window syndrome avoidance,
whereby the TCP protocol has an optimization that minimizes the
overhead of very small, unproductive window size updates associated
with sub-optimal socket applications consuming very small amount of
data on every receive() invocation. For SMC-R, the receiver only
updates the Peer Consumer Cursor via a unique RDMA write operation
under the following conditions:
o The current window size (from a sender's perspective) is less than
half of the Receive Buffer space and the Peer Consumer Cursor
update will result in a minimum increase in the window size of 10%
of the Receive buffer space. Some examples:
a. Receive Buffer size: 64K, Current window size (from a
sender's perspective): 50K. No need to update the Peer
Consumer Cursor. Plenty of space is available for the
sender.
b. Receive Buffer size: 64K, Current window size (from a
sender's perspective): 30K, Current window size from a
receiver's perspective: 31K. No need to update the Peer
Consumer Cursor; even though the sender's window size < 1/2
of the 64K, the window update would only increase that by 1K
which is < 1/10th of the 64K buffer size.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
c. Receive Buffer size: 64K, Current window size (from a
sender's perspective): 30K, Current window size from a
receiver's perspective: 64K. The receiver updates update the
Peer Consumer Cursor (sender's window size < 1/2 of the 64K,
the window update would increase that by > 6.4K).
o The receiver must always update the Peer Consumer Cursor (if it
doesn't match its local Consumer Cursor) if it performs an RDMA
write to the partner's RMBE control area for another flow (i.e.
send flow in the opposite direction). This allows the window size
update to be delivered with no additional overhead. This is
somewhat similar to TCP DelayAck processing and quite effective
for request/response data patterns.
o The optimized window size updates are overridden when the sender
turns on the Consumer Cursor Update Requested flag in the
producer flags field. When this indicator is on the consumer must
send a Consumer Cursor update immediately when data is consumed by
the local application or if the cursor has not been updated for a
while (i.e. local copy consumer cursor does not match the consumer
cursor in the partner's RMBE). This allows the sender to perform
optional diagnostics for detecting a stalled receiver application
(data has been sent but not consumed). It is recommended that the
Consumer Cursor Update Requested flag only get enabled for
diagnostic procedures as it may result in non-optimal data path
performance.
4.4.2. Small data sends
The SMC-R protocol makes no special provisions for handling small
data segments sent across a stream socket. Data is always sent if
sufficient window space is available. There are no special provisions
for coalescing small data segments, similar to the TCP Nagle
algorithm.
An implementation of SMC-R may optimize its sending processing by
coalescing outbound data for a given SMC-R connection so that it can
reduce the number of RDMA write operations it performed in a similar
fashion to Nagle's algorithm. However, any such coalescing would
require a timer on the sending host that would ensure that data was
eventually sent. And the sending host would have to opt out of this
processing if Nagle's algorithm had been disabled (programmatically
or via system configuration).
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.4.3. TCP Keepalive processing
TCP keepalive processing allows applications to direct the local
TCP/IP host to periodically "test" the viability of an idle TCP
connection. Since SMC-R connections have both a TCP representation
along with an SMC-R representation there are unique keepalive
processing considerations:
o SMC-R layer keepalive processing: If keepalive is enabled for an
SMC-R connection the local host maintains a keepalive timer that
reflects how long an SMC-R connection has been idle. The local
host also maintains a timestamp of last activity for each SMC link
(for any SMC-R connection on that link). When it is determined
that an SMC-R connection has been idle longer than the keepalive
interval the host checks whether the SMC-R link has been idle for
a duration longer than the keepalive timeout. If both conditions
are met, the local host then performs a Test Link LLC command to
test the viability of the SMC link over the RoCE fabric (RC-QPs).
If a Test Link LLC command response is received within a
reasonable amount of time then the link is considered viable and
all connections using this link are considered viable as well. If
however a response is not received in a reasonable amount of time
or there's a failure in sending the Test Link LLC command then
this is considered a failure in the SMC link and failover
processing to an alternate SMC link must be triggered. If no
alternate SMC link exists in the SMC link group then all the SMC-R
connections on this link are abnormally terminated by resetting
the TCP connections represented by these SMC-R connections. Given
that multiple SMC-R connections can share the same SMC link,
implementing an SMC link level probe using the Test Link LLC
command will help reduce the amount of unproductive keepalive
traffic for SMC-R connections; as long as some SMC-R connections
on a given SMC link are active (i.e. have had I/O activity within
the keepalive interval) then there is no need to perform
additional link viability testing.
o TCP layer keepalives processing: Traditional TCP "keepalive"
packets are not as relevant for SMC-R connections given that the
TCP path is not used for these connections once the SMC-R
rendezvous processing is completed. All SMC-R connections by
default have associated TCP connections that are idle. Are TCP
keepalive probes still needed for these connections? There are
two main scenarios to consider:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
1. TCP keepalives that are used determine whether the peer TCP
endpoint is still active. This is not needed for SMC-R
connections as the SMC-R level keepalives mentioned above will
determine whether the remote endpoint connections are still
active.
2. TCP keepalives that are used to ensure that TCP connections
traversing an intermediate proxy maintain an active state. For
example, stateful firewalls typically maintain state
representing every valid TCP connection that traverses the
firewall. These types of firewalls are known to expire idle
connections by removing their state in the firewall to conserve
memory. TCP keepalives are often used in this scenario to
prevent firewalls from timing out otherwise idle connections.
When using SMC-R, both end points must reside in the same layer
2 network (i.e. the same subnet). As a result, firewalls can
not be injected in the path between two SMC-R endpoints.
However, other intermediate proxies, such as TCP/IP layer load
balancers may be injected in the path of two SMC-R endpoints.
These types of load balancers also maintain connection state so
that they can forward TCP connection traffic to the appropriate
cluster end point. When using SMC-R these TCP connections will
appear to be completely idle making them susceptible to
potential timeouts at the LB proxy. As a result, for this
scenario, TCP keepalives may still be relevant.
The following are the TCP level keepalive processing requirements for
SMC-R enabled hosts:
o SMC-R hosts should allow TCP keepalives to flow on the TCP path of
SMC-R connections based on existing TCP keepalive configuration
and programming options. However, it is strongly recommended that
platforms that provide the ability to specify very granular
keepalive timers (for example, single digit second timers) should
consider providing a configuration option that limits the minimum
keepalive timer that will be used for TCP layer keepalives on SMC-
R connections. This is important to minimize the amount of TCP
keepalive packets transmitted in the network for SMC-R
connections.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o SMC-R hosts must always respond to inbound TCP layer keepalives
(by sending ACKs for these packets) even if the connection is
using SMC-R. Typically, once a TCP connection has completed the
SMC-R rendezvous processing and using SMC-R for data flows, no new
inbound TCP segments are expected on that TCP connection other
than TCP termination segments (FIN, RST, etc). TCP keepalives are
the one exception that must be supported. And since TCP keepalive
probes do not carry any application layer data this has no adverse
impact on the application's inbound data stream.
4.5. RMB data flows
The following sections describe the RDMA wire flows for the SMC-R
protocol after a TCP connection has switched into SMC-R mode (i.e.
SMC-R rendezvous processing is complete and a pair of RMB elements
has been assigned and communicated by the partner SMC-R hosts). The
ladder diagrams below include the following:
o RMBE control areas fields (cursors) in each pair of RMBEs. Only a
subset of the fields are depicted, specifically only the fields
that reflect the stream of data written by Host A and read by Host
B.
o Time line 0-x that shows the wire flows in a time relative fashion
o Note the RMBE control fields are only shown in a time interval if
their value changed (otherwise assume the value is unchanged from
previously depicted value)
o The local copy of the producer and consumer cursors that is
maintained by each host is not depicted in these figures.
o Each SMC-R host must also keep a copy of the last processed local
and remote RMBE control area so that it is aware of pending
changes that have not yet been reflected in the partner's RMBE
control area and also to allow detection of changes in the local
RMBE control area (by the peer). These copies are not reflected
in the ladder diagrams below to simplify these figures.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.5.1. Scenario 1: Send flow, window size unconstrained
SMC Host A SMC HostB
RMBE A Fields RMBE B Fields
(Consumer Cursors) (Producer Cursors)
Cursor Wrap Seq# Time Time Cursor Wrap Seq# Flags
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 ---------------> 1 0 0 0
RDMA-WR Data
(0:999)
0 0 2 ---------------> 2 1000 0 0
RDMA WR Control
data (I)
Figure 17 Scenario 1: Send flow, window size unconstrained
Scenario assumptions:
o Kernel implementation
o New SMC-R connection, no data has been sent on the connection
o Host A: Application issues send for 1,000 bytes to Host B
o Host B: RMBE receive buffer size is 10,000, application has issued
a recv for 10,000 bytes
Flow description:
1. Application issues send() for 1,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules an RDMA write
operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE receive buffer,
at relative position 0-999. Note that no immediate data or alert
(i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B for this RDMA operation.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
(the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
byte 1000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
back to the application. Host B, once notified of the completion
of the previous RDMA operation, locates the RMBE associated with
the RMBE alert token and proceeds to perform normal receive side
processing, waking up the suspended application read thread,
copying the data into the application's receive buffer, etc. It
will use the Peer Producer Cursor as an indicator of how much
data is available to be delivered to the local application.
After this processing is complete, the SMC-R layer will also
update its local Consumer Cursor to match the Peer Producer
Cursor (i.e. indicating that all data has been consumed). Note
that an update of the Peer Consumer Cursor for the partner's
RMBE is not needed at this time as the window size if
unconstrained (> 1/2 of the receive buffer size). The window
size is calculated using by taking the difference between the
Producer and the Consumer cursors in the RMBEs (10,000-
1,000=9,000).
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.5.2. Scenario 2: Send/Receive flow, window unconstrained
SMC Host A SMC HostB
RMBE A Fields RMBE B Fields
(Consumer Cursors) (Producer Cursors)
Cursor Wrap Seq# Time Time Cursor Wrap Seq# Flags
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 ---------------> 1 0 0 0
RDMA-WR Data
(0:999)
0 0 2 ---------------> 2 1000 0 0
RDMA WR Control
data (I)
0 0 3 <-------------- 3 1000 0 0
RDMA-WR Data
(0:499)
1000 0 4 <-------------- 4 1000 0 0
Figure 18 Scenario 2: Send/Recv flow, window size unconstrained
Scenario assumptions:
o New SMC-R connection, no data has been sent on the connection
o Host A: Application issues send for 1,000 bytes to Host B
o Host B: RMBE receive buffer size is 10,000, application has
already issued a recv for 10,000 bytes. Once the receive is
completed, the application sends a 500 byte response to Host A.
Flow description:
1. Application issues send() for 1,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules an RDMA write
operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE receive buffer,
at relative position 0-999. Note that no immediate data or alert
(i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B for this RDMA operation.
2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
(the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
byte 1000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
back to the application.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
3. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
the application's receive buffer, etc. After this processing is
complete, the SMC-R layer will also update its local Consumer
Cursor to match the Peer Producer Cursor (i.e. indicating that
all data has been consumed). Note that an update of the Peer
Consumer Cursor for the partner's RMBE is not needed at this
time as the window size if unconstrained (> 1/2 of the receive
buffer size). The application then performs a send() for 500
bytes to Host A. The SMC-R layer will copy the data into a
kernel buffer and then schedule an RDMA Write into the partner's
RMBE receive buffer. Note that this RDMA write operation
includes no immediate data or notification to Host A.
4. Host B schedules another RDMA write to update the partner's RMBE
Control area with the latest Peer Producer Cursor (set to 500
and not shown in the diagram above) and to also update the Peer
Consumer Cursor to 1000. It also updates the local Current
Consumer Cursor and Last Sent Consumer Cursor to 1000. This RDMA
Write includes immediate data/notification since we are updating
the Peer Producer Cursor which requires attention by the peer
host.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.5.3. Scenario 3: Send Flow, window constrained
SMC Host A SMC HostB
RMBE A Fields RMBE B Fields
(Consumer Cursors) (Producer Cursors)
Cursor Wrap Seq# Time Time Cursor Wrap Seq# Flags
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 ---------------> 1 0 0 0
RDMA-WR Data
(0:2999)
0 0 2 ---------------> 2 3000 0 0
RDMA-WR Control
data (I)
0 0 3 3 3000 0 0
0 0 4 ---------------> 4 3000 0 0
RDMA-WR Data
(3000:6999)
0 0 5 ---------------> 5 7000 0 0
RDMA-WR Control
data (I)
7000 0 6 <--------------- 6 7000 0 0
RDMA-WR Control
data
Figure 19 Scenario 3: Send Flow, window size constrained
Scenario assumptions:
o New SMC-R connection, no data has been sent on this connection
o Host A: Application issues send for 3,000 bytes to Host B and then
another send for 4,000
o Host B: RMBE receive buffer size is 10,000. Application has
already issued a recv for 10,000 bytes
Flow description:
1. Application issues send() for 3,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules an RDMA write
operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE receive buffer,
at relative position 0-2,999. Note that no immediate data or
alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B for this RDMA
operation.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
(the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
byte 3000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
back to the application.
3. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
the application's receive buffer, etc. After this processing is
complete, the SMC-R layer will also update its local Consumer
Cursor to match the Peer Producer Cursor (i.e. indicating that
all data has been consumed). It will not however update the
partner's RMBE with this information as the window size is not
constrained (10000-3000=7000 of available space). The
application on Host B also issues a new recv() for 10,000.
4. On Host A, application issues a send() for 4,000 bytes. The SMC-
R layer copies the data into a kernel buffer and schedules an
async RDMA write into the peer's RMBE receive buffer at relative
position 3000-6999. Note that no alert is provided to host B for
this flow.
5. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
(the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
byte 7000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
back to the application.
6. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
the application's receive buffer, etc. After this processing is
complete, the SMC-R layer will also update its local Consumer
Cursor to match the Peer Producer Cursor (i.e. indicating that
all data has been consumed). It will then determine whether the
Peer Consumer Cursor in RMBE A needs to be updated. The
available window size is now 3,000 (10,000 - (Producer Cursor -
Last Sent Consumer Cursor)) which < 1/2 receive buffer size
(10,000/2=5,000) and the advance of the window size is > 10% of
the windows size (1,000). Therefore an RDMA write operation is
issued to update the Peer Consumer Cursor on RMBE A. Note that
no immediate data is needed on this RDMA Write operation as Host
A is not blocked on this connection. Host A will notice the
updated cursor the next time it references RMBE A.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.5.4. Scenario 4: Large send, flow control, full window size writes
SMC Host A SMC HostB
RMBE A Fields RMBE B Fields
(Consumer Cursors) (Producer Cursors)
Cursor Wrap Seq# Time Time Cursor Wrap Seq# Flags
1000 1 0 0 1000 1 0
1000 1 1 ---------------> 1 1000 1 0
RDMA-WR Data
(1000:9999)
1000 1 2 ---------------> 2 1000 1 0
RDMA-WR Data
(0:999)
1000 1 3 ---------------> 3 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR Control Blk
data (I)
1000 2 4 <--------------- 4 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR Control Blk
data (I)
1000 2 5 ---------------> 5 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR Data Blk
(1000:9999)
1000 2 6 ---------------> 6 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR Data Blk
(0:999)
1000 2 7 ---------------> 7 1000 3 Wrt
RDMA-WR Control Blk
data (I)
1000 3 8 <--------------- 8 1000 3 Wrt
RDMA-WR Control Blk
data (I)
Figure 20 Scenario 4: Large send, flow control, full window size
writes
Scenario assumptions:
o Kernel implementation
o Existing SMC-R connection, Host B's receive window size is fully
open(Peer Consumer Cursor = Peer Producer Cursor).
o Host A: Application issues send for 20,000 bytes to Host B
o Host B: RMB receive buffer size is 10,000, application has issued
a recv for 10,000 bytes
Flow description:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
1. Application issues send() for 20,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
data into a kernel send buffer (assumes send buffer space of
20,000 is available for this connection). It then schedules an
RDMA write operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE
receive buffer, at relative position 1000-9999. Note that no
immediate data or alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B
for this RDMA operation.
2. Host A then schedules an RDMA write operation to fill the
remaining 1000 bytes of available data into the peer's RMBE
receive buffer, at relative position 0-999. Note that no
immediate data or alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B
for this RDMA operation. Also note that an implementation of
SMC-R may optimize this processing by combining step 1 and 2
into a single RDMA Write operation (with 2 different data
sources).
3. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
(the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
byte 1000. Since the entire receive buffer space is filled, the
Peer Producer Writer Blocked flag (WrtBlk indicator above) is
set and the Peer Producer Window Wrap Sequence Number (Producer
WrapSeq# above) is incremented. This RDMA write operation will
deliver an interrupt to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer
can return control back to the application.
4. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
the application's receive buffer, etc. In this scenario, Host B
notices that the Peer Producer Cursor has not been advanced
(same value as Peer Consumer Cursor), however, it notices that
the Producer Window Wrap Size Sequence number is different from
its local value (1) indicating that a full window of new data is
available. All the data in the receive buffer can be processed,
the first segment (1000-9999) followed by the second segment (0-
999). Because the Producer Writer Blocked indicator was set,
Host B schedules another RDMA write to update the partner's RMBE
Control area with the latest control information: Peer Producer
Cursor (1000), Peer Consumer Window Wrap Size Sequence Number
(2: the current Producer Window Wrap Sequence Number is used).
This RDMA Write includes immediate data/notification.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
5. Host A, upon interrupt notification locates the RMBE associated
with the alert token, and upon examining the control area
notices that Host B has consumed all of the data (based on the
Consumer Cursor and the Consumer Window Wrap Size Sequence
number) and initiates the next RDMA write to fill the receive
buffer at offset 1000-9999.
6. Host A then moves the remaining 1000 bytes into the beginning of
the receive buffer (0-999) by scheduling an RDMA write
operation.
7. Host A then schedules an RDMA write operation with immediate
data to set the Producer Writer Blocked indicator and to
increment the Producer Window Wrap Size Sequence Number (3).
8. Host B, upon notification completes the same processing as step
4 above, including updates to the peer's RMBE control area to
indicate that all data has been consumed.
4.5.5. Scenario 5: Send flow, urgent data, window size unconstrained
SMC Host A SMC HostB
RMBE A Fields RMBE B Fields
(Consumer Cursors) (Producer Cursors)
Cursor Wrap Seq# Time Time Cursor Wrap Seq# Flag
1000 1 0 0 1000 1 0
1000 1 1 ---------------> 1 1000 1 0
RDMA-WR Data
(1000:1499)
1000 1 2 ---------------> 2 1500 1 UrgP
RDMA-WR Control UrgA
data (I)
1500 1 3 <--------------- 3 1500 1 UrgP
RDMA-WR Control UrgA
data (I)
1500 1 4 ---------------> 4 1500 1 UrgP
RDMA-WR Data UrgA
(1500:2499)
1500 1 5 ---------------> 5 2500 1 0
RDMA-WR Control
data (I)
Figure 21 Scenario 5: send Flow, urgent data, window size open
Scenario assumptions:
o Kernel implementation
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Existing SMC-R connection, window size open, all data has been
consumed by receiver.
o Host A: Application issues send for 500 bytes with urgent data
indicator (OOB) to Host B, then sends 1000 of normal data
o Host B: RMBE Receive buffer size is 10,000, application has issued
a recv for 10,000 bytes and is also monitoring the socket for
urgent data
Flow description:
1. Application issues send() for 500 bytes of urgent data. SMC-R
layer copies data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules
an RDMA write operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE
receive buffer, at relative position 1000-1499. Note that no
immediate data or alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B
for this RDMA operation.
2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
(the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
byte 1500 and to turn on the Producer Urgent Data Pending (UrgP)
and Urgent Data Present (UrgA) flags. This RDMA write operation
will deliver an interrupt to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R
layer can return control back to the application.
3. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert
token, notices that the Urgent Data Pending flag is on and
proceeds with Out of Band socket API notification. For example,
satisfying any outstanding select() or poll() requests on the
socket by indicating that urgent data is pending (i.e. by
setting the exception bit on). The Urgent Data Present indicator
allows Host B to also determine the position of the urgent data
(Peer Producer cursor points one byte beyond the last byte of
urgent data). Host B can then perform normal receive side
processing (including specific urgent data processing), copying
the data into the application's receive buffer, etc. Host B then
schedules a RDMA write to update the partner's RMBE Control area
with the latest Peer Consumer Cursor (1500). This RDMA Write
includes immediate data/notification. Note this RDMA write flow
must occur regardless of the current local window size that is
available. The partner host (Host A) cannot initiate any
additional RDMA writes until acknowledgement that the urgent
data has been processed (or at least processed/remembered at the
SMC-R layer).
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4. Upon notification, Host A wakes up, sees that peer consumed all
data up to and including the last byte of Urgent data and now
resumes sending any pending data. In this case, the application
had previously issued a send for 1000 bytes of normal data which
would have been copied in the send buffer and control would have
been returned to the application. Host A now initiates a RDMA
write to move that data to the Peer's receive buffer at position
1500-2499.
5. Host A then issues a RDMA write with immediate data to update
the control area in the peer's RMBE with the updated Producer
Cursor value (2500) and turning off the Urgent Data Pending and
Urgent Data Present flags. Host B wakes up, processes the new
data (resumes application, copies data into the application
receive buffer) and then proceeds to update the Local current
consumer cursor (2500). Given that the window size is
unconstrained there is no need for Consumer Cursor update in the
peer's RMBE.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
4.5.6. Scenario 6: Send flow, urgent data, window size closed
SMC Host A SMC HostB
RMBE A Fields RMBE B Fields
(Consumer Cursors) (Producer Cursors)
Cursor Wrap Seq# Time Time Cursor Wrap Seq# Flag
1000 1 0 0 1000 2 Wrt
Blk
1000 1 1 ---------------> 1 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR control Blk
data (I) UrgP
1000 2 2 <--------------- 2 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR Control Blk
data (I) UrgP
1000 2 3 ---------------> 3 1000 2 Wrt
RDMA-WR data l Blk
(1000:1499) UrgP
1000 2 4 ---------------> 4 1500 2 UrgP
RDMA-WR control UrgA
data (I)
1500 2 5 <--------------- 5 1500 2 UrgP
RDMA-WR Control UrgA
data (I)
1500 2 6 ---------------> 6 1500 2 UrgP
RDMA-WR data l UrgA
(1500:2499)
1000 2 7 ---------------> 7 2500 2 0
RDMA-WR control
data (I)
Figure 22 Scenario 6: Send flow, urgent data, window size closed
Scenario assumptions:
o Kernel implementation
o Existing SMC-R connection, window size closed, writer is blocked.
o Host A: Application issues send for 500 bytes with urgent data
indicator (OOB) to Host B, then sends 1000 of normal data.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Host B: RMBE Receive buffer size is 10,000, application has no
outstanding recv() (for normal data) and is monitoring the socket
for urgent data.
Flow description:
1. Application issues send() for 500 bytes of urgent data. SMC-R
layer copies data into a kernel send buffer (if available).
Since the writer is blocked (window size closed) it cannot send
the data immediately. It then schedules an RDMA write operation
with immediate data to turn on the Urgent Data Pending
(UrgP)indicator (the Writer Blocked indicator remains on as
well). This serves as a signal to Host B that urgent data is
pending in the stream. Control is also returned to the
application at this point.
2. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert
token, notices that the Urgent Data Pending flag is on and
proceeds with Out of Band socket API notification. For example,
satisfying any outstanding select() or poll() requests on the
socket by indicating that urgent data is pending (i.e. by
setting the exception bit on). At this point it is expected that
the application will enter urgent data mode processing,
expeditiously processing all normal data (by issuing recv API
calls) so that it can get to the urgent data byte. Whether the
application has this urgent mode processing or not, at some
point the application will consume some or all of the pending
data in the receive buffer. When this occurs, Host B will also
schedule an RDMA write with immediate data to update the Peer
Consumer Cursor and the Peer Consumer Window Wrap Sequence
Number. In the example above, a full window worth of data was
consumed.
3. Host A, once awaken will notice that the window size is now open
on this connection (based on the Peer Consumer Cursor and the
Consumer Window Wrap Sequence Number which now matches the
Producer Window Wrap Sequence Number) and resume sending of the
urgent data segment by scheduling an RDMA write into relative
position 1000-1499.
4. Host A the issues an RDMA write with immediate data to advance
the Peer Producer Cursor (1500) and to also turn on the Urgent
Data Present (UrgA) indicator (and turn off the Writer Blocked
indicator). This signals to Host B that the urgent data is now
in the local receive buffer and that the Peer Producer Cursor
points to the last byte of urgent data.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
5. Host B wakes up, processes the urgent data and once the urgent
data is consumed schedules an RDMA write with immediate data to
update the Peer Consumer Cursor (1500)
6. Host A wakes up, sees that Host B has consumed the sequence
number associated with the urgent data and then initiates the
next RDMA write operation to move the 1000 bytes associated with
the next send() of normal data into the peer's receive buffer at
position (1500-2499). Note that send() API would have likely
completed earlier in the process by copying the 1000 bytes into
a send buffer and returning back to the application even though
we could not send any new data until the urgent data was
processed and acknowledged by Host B.
7. Host A schedules an RDMA Write operation to advance the Peer
Producer Cursor to 2500 and to reset the Urgent Data Pending and
Present flags. Host B wakes up and processes the inbound data.
4.6. Connection termination
Just as SMC-R connections are established using a combination of TCP
connection establishment flows and SMC-R protocol flows, the
termination of SMC-R connections also uses a similar combination of
SMC-R protocol termination flows and normal TCP protocol connection
termination flows. The following sections describe the SMC-R protocol
normal and abnormal connection termination flows.
4.6.1. Normal SMC-R connection termination flows
Normal SMC-R connection flows are triggered via the normal stream
socket API semantics, namely by the application issuing a close() or
shutdown() API. Most applications, after consuming all incoming data
and after sending any outbound data will then issue a close() API to
indicate that they are done both sending and receiving data. Some
applications, typically a small percentage, make use of the
shutdown() API that allows then to indicate that the application is
done sending data, receiving data or both sending and receiving data.
The main use of this API is scenarios where a TCP application wants
to alert its partner end point that it is done sending data, yet is
still receiving data on its socket (shutdown for Write). Issuing
shutdown for both sending and receiving data is really no different
than issuing a close() and can therefore be treated in a similar
fashion. Shutdown for read is typically not a very useful operation
and in normal circumstances does not trigger any network flows to
notify the partner TCP end point of this operation.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
These same trigger points will be used by the SMC-R layer to initiate
SMC-R connections termination flows. The main design point for SMC-R
normal connection flows is to use the SMC-R protocol to first
shutdown the SMC-R connection and free up any SMC-R RDMA resources
and then allow the normal TCP connection termination protocol (i.e.
FIN processing) to drive cleanup of the TCP connection. This design
point is very important in ensuring that RDMA resources such as the
RMBEs are only freed and reused when both SMC-R end points are
completely done with their RDMA Write operations to the partner's
RMBE.
1
+-----------------+
|-------------->| CLOSED |<-------------|
3D | | | | 4D
| +-----------------+ |
| | |
| 2 | |
| V |
+----------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
|AppFinCloseWait | | ACTIVE | |PeerFinCloseWait|
| | | | | |
+----------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
| | | |
| Active Close | 3A | 4A | Passive Close |
| V | V |
| +--------------+ | +-------------+ |
|--<----|PeerCloseWait1| | |AppCloseWait1|--->----|
3C | | | | | | | 4C
| +--------------+ | +-------------+ |
| | | | |
| | 3B | 4B | |
| V | V |
| +--------------+ | +-------------+ |
|--<----|PeerCloseWait2| | |AppCloseWait2|--->----|
| | | | |
+--------------+ | +-------------+
|
|
Figure 23 SMC-R connection states
Figure 23 describes the states that an SMC-R connection typically
goes through. Note that there are variations to these states that can
occur when an SMC-R connection is abnormally terminated, similar in a
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
way to when a TCP connection is reset. The following are the high
level state transitions for an SMC-R connection:
1. An SMC-R connection begins in the Closed state. This state is
meant to reflect an RMBE that is not currently in use (was
previously in use but no longer is or one that was never
allocated)
2. An SMC-R connection progresses to the Active state once the SMC-
R rendezvous processing has successfully completed, RMB element
indices have been exchanged and SMC-R links have been activated.
In this state, TCP connection is fully established, rendezvous
processing has been completed and SMC-R peers can begin exchange
of data via RDMA.
3. Active close processing (on SMC-R peer that is initiating the
connection termination)
A. When an application on one of the SMC-R connection peers issues
a close() or shutdown(write or both) the SMC-R layer on that host
will initiate SMC-R connection termination processing. First if
close() or shutdown(both) is issued it will check to see that
there's no data in the local RMB element that has not been read
by the application. If unread data is detected, the SMC-R
connection must be abnormally reset - for more detail on this
refer to "SMC-R connection reset". If no unread data is pending,
it then checks to see whether any outstanding data is waiting to
be written to the peer or if any outstanding RDMA writes for this
SMC-R connection have not yet completed. If either of these two
scenarios are true, an indicator that this connection is in a
pending close state is saved in internal data structures
representing this SMC-R connection and control is returned to the
application. If all data to be written to the partner has
completed this peer will perform an RDMA Write with Immediate
Data to turn on either the PeerConnectionClosed indicator (close
or shutdown for both was issued) or the PeerDoneWriting indicator
in the RMBE control area. This will provide stimulus to the
partner SMC-R peer that the connection is terminating. At this
point the local side of the SMC-R connection transitions in the
PeerCloseWait1 state and control can be returned to the
application. If this process could not be completed
synchronously (close pending condition mentioned above) it is
completed when all RDMA writes for data and control cursors have
been completed.
B. At some point the SMC-R peer application (passive close) will
consume all incoming data, realize that that partner is done
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
sending data on this connection and proceed to initiate its own
close of the connection once it has completed sending all data
from its end. The partner application can initiate this
connection termination processing via a close() or shutdown()
APIs. If the application does so by issuing a shutdown() for
write, then the partner SMC-R layer will perform an RDMA Write
with immediate data to turn on the PeerDoneWriting indicator in
the RMBE control area of the SMC-R peer (active close side).
When the "active close" SMC-R peer wakes up as a result of the
previous RDMA write, it will notice that the PeerDoneWriting
indicator is now on and transition to the PeerCloseWait2 state.
This state indicates that the peer is done sending data and may
still be reading data. The "active close" peer will also at this
point need to ensure that any outstanding recv() calls for this
socket are woken up and remember that that no more data is
forthcoming on this connection (in case the local connection was
shutdown() for write only)
C. This flow is a common transition from 3a or 3b above. When the
SMC-R peer (passive close) consumes all data, updates all
necessary cursors in the peer's RMB and the application closes
its socket (close or shutdown for both) it will turn on the
PeerConnectionClosed indicator in the RMBE control area (of the
active close side) via an RDMA write with immediate data. At this
point the connection can transition back to Closed state if the
local application has already closed (or issued shutdown for
both) the socket. Once in the Closed state, the RMBE can now be
safely be reused for a new SMC-R connection. When the
PeerConnectionClosed indicator is turned on, the SMC-R peer is
indicating that it is done updating the partner's RMBE.
D. Conditional State: If the local application has not yet issued
a close() or shutdown(both) yet, we need to wait until the
application does so (ApplFinWaitState). Once it does, the local
host will issue an RDMA Write to turn on the PeerConnectionClosed
indicator in the partner RMBE and then transition to the Closed
state.
4. Passive close processing (on SMC-R peer that receives an
indication that the partner is closing the connection)
A. Upon notification of an inbound RDMA write completion the SMC-R
layer will detect that the PeerConnectionClosed indicator or
PeerDoneWriting indicator is on. If any outstanding recv() calls
are pending they are completed with an indicator that the partner
has closed the connection (zero length data presented to
application). If any pending data to be written and
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
PeerConnectionClosed is on then an SMC-R connection reset must be
performed. The connection then enters the ApplCloseWait1 state on
the passive close side waiting for the local application to
initiate its own close processing
B. If the local application issues a shutdown() for writing then
the SMC-R layer will issue an RDMA write with immediate data to
turn on the PeerDoneWriting indicator in the partner's RMBE
control area and transition the local side of the SMC-R
connection to the ApplCloseWait2 state.
C. When the application issues a close() or shutdown() for both,
the local SMC-R peer will turn on the PeerConnectionClosed
indicator on the peer RMBE with RDMA write with immediate data
and transition to the Closed state if the local
PeerConnectionClosed indicator is on. If the local
PeerConnectionClosed indicator is not on we transition into the
PeerFinalCloseWait state.
D. The local SMC-R connection stays in this state until the peer
turns on the PeerConnectionClosed indicator in our RMBE. When the
indicator is turned on we transition to the Closed state and are
then free to reuse this RMBE.
Note that each SMC-R needs to provide some logic that will prevent
being stranded in termination state indefinitely. For example, if an
Active Close SMC-R host is in a PeerCloseWait (1 or 2) state awaiting
the remote SMC-R peer to update its connection termination status it
needs to provide a timer that will prevent it from waiting in that
state indefinitely should the remote SMC-R peer not respond to this
termination request. This could occur in error scenarios; for
example, if the remote SMC-R peer suffered a failure prior to being
able to respond to the termination request or the remote application
is not responding to this connection termination request by closing
its own socket. This latter scenario is similar to the TCP FINWAIT2
state that has been known to sometimes cause issues when remote
TCP/IP hosts lose track of established connections and neglect to
close them. Even though the TCP standards do not mandate a time out
from the TCP FINWAIT2 state, most TCP/IP implementations implement a
timeout for this state. A similar timeout will be required for SMC-R
connections. When this timeout occurs, the local SMC-R host performs
TCP reset processing for this connection. However, no additional
RDMA writes to the partner RMBE can occur at this point (we have
already indicated that we are done updating the peer's RMBE). After
the TCP connection is Reset the RMBE can be returned to the free pool
for reallocation. See section 3.2.5 for more details.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Also note that it is possible to have two SMC-R end points initiate
an Active close concurrently. In that scenario the flows above still
apply, however, both end points follow the active close path (path
3).
4.6.1.1. Abnormal SMC-R connection termination flows
Abnormal SMC-R connection termination can occur for a variety of
reasons, including:
o The TCP connection associated with an SMC-R connection is reset.
In the TCP protocol either end point can send a RST segment to
abort an existing TCP connection when error conditions are
detected for the connection or the application overtly requests
that the connection be reset.
o Normal SMC-R connection termination processing has unexpectedly
stalled for a given connection. When the stall is detected
(connection termination timeout condition) an abnormal SMC-R
connection termination flow is initiated.
In these scenarios it is very important that resources associated
with the affected SMC-R connections are properly cleaned up to ensure
that there are no orphaned resources and that resources can reliably
be reused for new SMC-R connections. Given that SMC-R relies heavily
on the RDMA Write processing, special care needs to be taken to
ensure that an RMBE is no longer being used by a SMC-R peer before
logically reassigning that RMBE to a new SMC-R connection.
When an SMC-R host initiates a TCP connection reset it also initiates
an SMC-R abnormal connection flow at the same time. The SMC-R peers
explicitly signal their intent to abnormally terminate an SMC-R
connection and await explicit acknowledgement that the peer has
received this notification and has also completed abnormal connection
termination on its end. Note that TCP connection reset processing can
occur in parallel to these flows.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
+-----------------+
|-------------->| CLOSED |<-------------|
| | | |
| +-----------------+ |
| |
| |
| |
| +-----------------+ |
| | Any State | |
|1B | (before setting | 2B|
| | PeerConnClosed | |
| | Indicator in | |
| | Peer's RMBE) | |
| +-----------------+ |
| 1A | | 2A |
| Active Abort | | Passive Abort |
| V V |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
|-------|PeerAbortWait | | Process Abort|------|
| | | |
+--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 24 SMC-R abnormal connection termination state diagram
Figure 24 above shows the SMC-R abnormal connection termination state
diagram:
1. Active abort designates the SMC-R peer that is initiating the
TCP RST processing. At the time that the TCP RST is sent the
active abort side must also
A. Set the PeerConnAbort indicator in the partner's RMBE via RDMA
with immediate data and then transition to the PeerAbortWait
state. During this state it will monitor this SMC-R connection
waiting for the peer set its corresponding PeerConnAbort
indicator in the local RMBE but will ignore any other activity in
this connection (i.e. new incoming data). It will also surface an
appropriate error to any socket API calls issued against this
socket (e.g. ECONNABORTED, ECONNRESET, etc.)
B. Once the peer turns on the PeerConnAbort indicator in the local
RMBE, the local host can transition this SMC-R connection to the
Closed state and reuse this RMBE. Note that the SMC-R peer that
goes into the Active abort state must provide some protection
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
against staying in that state indefinitely should the remote SMC-
R peer not respond by setting its own PeerConnAbort indicator in
the local host's RMBE. While this should be a rare scenario it
could occur if the remote SMC-R peer (passive abort) suffered a
failure right after the local SMC-R host (active abort) set the
PeerConnAbort indicator. To protect against these types of
failures, a timer can be set after entering the PeerAbortWait
state and when if that timer pops before the peer has set the
local PeerConnAbort indicator (active abort side) then this RMBE
can be returned to the free pool for possible re-allocation. See
section See section 3.2.5 for more details.
2. Passive abort designates the SMC-R peer that is the recipient of
an SMC-R abort from the peer designated by the PeerConnAbort
indicator being set by the peer in the local RMBE. Upon
receiving this request, the local peer must
A. Indicate to the socket application that this connection has
been aborted using the appropriate error codes, purge all in-
flight data for this connection that is waiting to be read or
waiting to be sent.
B. Perform an RDMA write with immediate data to set the
PeerConnAbort indicator in the peer's RMBE and once that is
completed transition this RMBE to the Closed state.
If an SMC-R host receives a TCP RST for a given SMC-R connection it
also initiates SMC-R abnormal connection termination processing if it
has not already been notified (via the PeerConnAbort indicator) that
the partner is severing the connection. It is possible to have two
SMC-R endpoints concurrently be in an Active abort role for a given
connection. In that scenario the flows above still apply but both
end points take the active abort path (path 1).
4.6.1.2. Other SMC-R connection termination conditions
The following are additional conditions that have implications of
SMC-R connection termination:
o A SMC-R host being gracefully shut down. If an SMC-R host supports
a graceful shutdown operation it should attempt to terminate all
SMC-R connections as part of shutdown processing. This could be
accomplished via LLC Delete Link requests on all active SMC Links.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o Abnormal termination of an SMC-R host. In this example, there may
be no opportunity for the host to perform any SMC-R cleanup
processing. In this scenario it is up to the remote peer to
detect a RoCE communications failure with the failing host. This
could trigger an SMC link switch but that would also surface RoCE
errors causing the remote host to eventually terminate all
existing SMC-R connections to this peer.
o Loss of RoCE connectivity between two SMC-R peers. If two peers
are no longer reachable across any links in their SMC Link group
then both peers perform a TCP reset for the connections, surface
an error to the local applications and free up all QP resources
associated with the link group.
5. Security considerations
5.1. VLAN considerations
The concepts and access control of virtual LANs (VLANs) must be
extended to also cover the RoCE network traffic flowing across the
ethernet.
The RoCE VLAN configuration and accesses must mirror the IP VLAN
configuration and accesses over the CEE fabric. This means that
hosts, routers and switches that have access to specific VLANs on the
IP fabric must also have the same VLAN access across the RoCE
fabric. In other words, the SMC-R connectivity will follow the same
virtual network access permissions as normal TCP/IP traffic.
5.2. Firewall considerations
As mentioned above, the RoCE fabric inherits the same VLAN
topology/access as the IP fabric. RoCE is a layer 2 protocol that
requires both end points to reside in the same layer 2 network (i.e.
VLAN). RoCE traffic can not traverse multiple VLANs as there is no
support for routing RoCE traffic beyond a single VLAN. As a result,
SMC-R communications will also be confined to stacks that are members
of the same VLAN. IP based firewalls are typically inserted between
VLANs (or physical lans) and rely on normal IP routing to insert
themselves in the data path. Since RoCE (and by extension SMC-R) is
not routable beyond the local VLAN, there is no ability to insert a
firewall in the network path of two SMC-R peers.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
5.3. IP Filters
Because SMC-R maintains the TCP three-way handshake for connection
setup before switching to RoCE out of band, existing IP filters that
control connection setup flows remain effective in an SMC-R
environment. IP filters that operate on traffic flowing in an active
TCP connection are not supported, because the connection data does
not flow over IP.
5.4. Intrusion Detection Services
Similar to IP filters, intrusion detection services that operate on
TCP connection setups are compatible with SMC-R with no changes
required. However once the TCP connection has switched to RoCE out
of band, packets are not available for examination.
5.5. IP Security (IPSec)
IP Security is not compatible with SMC-R because there are no IP
packets to operate on. TCP connections that require IP security must
opt out of SMC-R.
5.6. TLS/SSL
TLS/SSL is preserved in an SMC-R environment. The TLS/SSL layer
resides above the SMC-R layer and outgoing connection data is
encrypted before being passed down to the SMC-R layer for RMDA write.
Similarly, incoming connection data goes through the SMC-R layer
encrypted and is decrypted by the TLS/SSL layer as it is today.
The TLS/SSL handshake messages flow over the TCP connection after the
connection has switched to SMC-R, so are exchanged using RDMA writes
by the SMC-R layer, transparently to the TLS/SSL layer.
6. IANA considerations
The scarcity of TCP option codes available for assignment is
understood and this architecture uses experimental TCP options
following the conventions of draft-ietf-tcpm-experimental-options-
01.txt.
If this protocol achieves wide acceptance a discrete option code may
be requested by subsequent versions of this protocol.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ROCE] RDMA over Converged Ethernet specification, URL,
http://members.infinibandta.org/kwspub/spec/Annex_RoCE_fina
l.pdf
[IBTA] Infiniband Architecture specification, URL,
http://www.infinibandta.org/specs
[RFC793] University of Southern California Information Services
Institute, "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
September 1981.
[RFC4727] Fenner B., "Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.
7.2. Informative References
[Tou2012] Touch, J., "Shared use of Experimental TCP Options", draft
URL, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-
experimental-options-01
8. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
9. Conventions used in this document
In the rendezvous flow diagrams, dashed lines (----) are used to
indicate flows over the TCP/IP fabric and dotted lines (....) are
used to indicate flows over the RoCE fabric.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Appendix A. Formats
A.1. TCP option
The SMC-R TCP option is formatted in accordance with draft-ietf-tcpm-
experimental-options-01.txt. The magic number is IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)
encoding for 'SMCR'
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kind = 253 | Length = 6 | x'E2' | x'D4' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 25 SMC-R TCP option format
A.2. CLC messages
The following rules apply to all CLC messages:
General rules on formats:
o Reserved fields must be set to zero and not validated
o Each message has an eyecatcher at the start and another eyecatcher
at the end. These must both be validated by the receiver.
o SMC version indicator: The only SMC-R version defined in this
architecture is version 1. In the future, if peers have a
mismatch of versions, the lowest common version number is used.
A.2.1. Peer ID format
All CLC messages contain a peer ID that uniquely identifies an
instance of a stack. This peer ID is required to be universally
unique across stacks and instances (including restarts) of stacks.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID | RoCE MAC (first two bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RoCE MAC (last four bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 26 Peer ID format
Instance ID
A two-byte instance count that ensures that if the same RNIC MAC
is later used in the peer ID for a different stack, for example
if an RNIC is redeployed to another stack, the values are unique.
It also ensures that if a stack is restarted, the instance ID
changes. Value is implementation defined, with one suggestion
being two bytes of the system clock.
RoCE MAC
The RoCE MAC address for one of the stack's RNICs. Note that in
a virtualized environment this will be the virtual MAC of one of
the stack's RNICs.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
A.2.2. SMC Proposal CLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 | Length |Version| Rsrvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Client's Peer ID -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Client's preferred GID -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Client's preferred RoCE |
+- MAC address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Subnet Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Mask Lgth| Reserved |Num IPv6 prfx |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: (Variable length) array of IPv6 Prefixes :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 27 SMC Proposal CLC message format
The fields present in the SMC Proposal CLC message are:
Eyecatchers
Like all CLC messages, the SMC Proposal has beginning and ending
eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing. The hex digits
spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)
Type
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
CLC message type 1 indicates SMC Proposal
Length
The length of this CLC message. If this an IPv4 flow, this
value is 52. Otherwise it is variable depending upon how many
prefixes are listed.
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value
Client's Peer ID
As described in A.2.1. above
Client's preferred RoCE GID
This is the IPv6 address of the client's preferred RNIC on the
RoCE fabric
Client's preferred RoCE MAC address
The MAC address of the client's preferred RNIC on the RoCE
fabric. It is required as some operating systems do not have
neighbor discovery or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.
IPv4 Subnet mask
If this message is flowing over an IPv4 TCP connection, the value
of the subnet mask associated with the interface the client sent
this message over. If this an IPv6 flow this field is all zeroes
IPv4 Mask Lgth
If this message is flowing over an IPv4 TCP connection, the
number of significant bits in the IPv4 subnet mask. If this an
IPv6 flow, this field is zero.
Num IPv6 prfx
If this message is flowing over an IPv6 TCP connection, the
number of IPv6 prefixes that follow, with a maximum value of 8.
if this is an IPv4 flow this field is zero and is immediately
followed by the ending eyecatcher.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Array of IPv6 Prefixes
For IPv6 TCP connections, a list of the IPv6 prefixes associated
with the network the client sent this message over, up to a
maximum of 8 prefixes.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Prefix value +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 28 Format for IPv6 Prefix array element
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
A.2.3. SMC Accept CLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 | Length = 64 |Version|F|Rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Server's Peer ID -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Server's RoCE GID -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Server's RoCE |
+- MAC address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Server QP (bytes 1-2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+
|Srvr QP byte 3 | Server RMB Rkey (bytes 1-3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Srvr RMB byte 4|Server RMB indx| Srvr RMB alert tkn (bytes 1-2)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Srvr RMB alert tkn (bytes 3-4)|Bsize | Rsrvd | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Server's RMB virtual address -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 29 SMC Accept CLC message format
The fields present on the SMC Accept CLC message are:
Eyecatchers
Like all CLC messages, the SMC Accept has beginning and ending
eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing. The hex digits
spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Type
CLC message type 2 indicates SMC Accept
Length
The SMC Accept CLC message is 64 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
F-bit
First Contact flag: A 1-bit flag that indicates that the server
believes this TCP connection is the first SMC-R contact for this
link group
Server's Peer ID
As described in A.2.1. above
Server's RoCE GID
This is the IPv6 address of the RNIC that the server chose for
this SMC Link
Server's RoCE MAC address
The MAC address of the server's RNIC for the SMC link. It is
required as some operating systems do not have neighbor discovery
or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.
Server's QP number
The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the server
created for this SMC link
Server's RMB Rkey
The RDMA Rkey for the RMB that the server created or chose for
this TCP connection
Server's RMB element index
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
This indexes which element within the server's RMB will represent
this TCP connection
Server's RMB element alert token
A platform defined, architecturally opaque token that identifies
this TCP connection. Added by the client as immediate data on
RDMA writes from the client to the server to inform the server
that there is data for this connection to retrieve from the RMB
element
Bsize:
Server's RMB element buffer size in four bits compressed
notation: x=4 bits. Actual buffer size value is (2^(x+4)) * 1K.
Smallest possible value is 16K. Largest size supported by this
architecture is 512K.
Server's RMB virtual address
The virtual address of the server's RMB as assigned by the
server's RNIC.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
A.2.4. SMC Confirm CLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 3 | Length = 60 |Version| Rsrvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Client's Peer ID -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Client's RoCE GID -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Client's RoCE |
+- MAC address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Client QP (bytes 1-2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+
|Clnt QP byte 3 | Client RMB Rkey (bytes 1-3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Clnt RMB byte 4|Client RMB indx| Clnt RMB alert tkn (bytes 1-2)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Clnt RMB alert tkn (bytes 3-4)|Bsize | Rsrvd | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Client's RMB Virtual Address -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 30 SMC Confirm CLC message format
The SMC Confirm CLC message is nearly identical to the SMC Accept
except that it contains client information and lacks a first contact
flag.
The fields present on the SMC Confirm CLC message are:
Eyecatchers
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Like all CLC messages, the SMC Confirm has beginning and ending
eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing. The hex digits
spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)
Type
CLC message type 3 indicates SMC Confirm
Length
The SMC Confirm CLC message is 60 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
Client's Peer ID
As described in A.2.1. above
Clients's RoCE GID
This is the IPv6 address of the RNIC that the client chose for
this SMC Link
Client's RoCE MAC address
The MAC address of the client's RNIC for the SMC link. It is
required as some operating systems do not have neighbor discovery
or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.
Client's QP number
The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the client
created for this SMC link
Client's RMB Rkey
The RDMA Rkey for the RMB that the client created or chose for
this TCP connection
Client's RMB element index
This indexes which element within the client's RMB will represent
this TCP connection
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Client's RMB element alert token
A platform defined, architecturally opaque token that identifies
this TCP connection. Added by the server as immediate data on
RDMA writes from the server to the client to inform the client
that there is data for this connection to retrieve from the RMB
element
Bsize:
Client's RMB element buffer size in four bits compressed
notation: x=4 bits. Actual buffer size value is (2^(x+4)) * 1K.
Smallest possible value is 16K. Largest size supported by this
architecture is 512K.
Client's RMB virtual address
The virtual address of the RMB as assigned by the client's RNIC.
A.2.5. SMC Decline CLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 4 | Length = 28 |Version| Rsrvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Sender's Peer ID -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reason code | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Reserved -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| x'E2' | x'D4' | x'C3' | x'D9' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 31 SMC Decline CLC message format
The fields present on the SMC Decline CLC message are:
Eyecatchers
Like all CLC messages, the SMC Decline has beginning and ending
eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing. The hex digits
spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Type
CLC message type 4 indicates SMC Decline
Length
The SMC Decline CLC message is 28 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
Sender's Peer ID
As described in A.2.1. above
Reason Code
A two byte reason code set by the sender.
Values tbd (get with Dave to reconcile reason codes)
A.3. LLC messages
LLC messages are sent over an existing SMC-R link using RoCE message
passing and are always 44 bytes long so that they fit into the space
available in a single WQE without requiring the receiver to post
receive buffers. If all 44 bytes are not needed, they are padded out
with zeroes. LLC messages are in a request/response format. The
message type is the same for request and response, and a flag
indicates whether a message is flowing as a request or a response.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
A.3.1. CONFIRM LINK LLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type = 1 | length = 44 |Version| Rsrvd |R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's RoCE |
+- MAC address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+- -+
| Sender's RoCE GID |
+- -+
| |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |Sender's QP number, bytes 1-2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sender QP byte3| Link number |Sender's link userid, bytes 1-2|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sender's link userid bytes, 3-4| Max links | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- Reserved -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 32 CONFIRM LINK LLC message format
The CONFIRM LINK LLC message is required to be exchanged between the
server and client over a newly created SMC-R link to complete the
setup of an SMC link. Its purpose is to confirm that the RoCE path
is actually usable.
On first contact this flows after the server receives the SMC Confirm
CLC message from the client over the IP connection. For additional
links added to an SMC link group, it flows after the ADD LINK and ADD
LINK CONTINUATION exchange. This flow provides confirmation that the
queue pair is in fact usable. Each peer echoes its RoCE information
back to the other.
Type
Type 1 indicates CONFIRM LINK
Length
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
All LLC messages are 44 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
R
Reply flag. When set indicates this is a CONFIRM LINK REPLY
Sender's RoCE MAC address
The MAC address of the sender's RNIC for the SMC link. It is
required as some operating systems do not have neighbor discovery
or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.
Sender's RoCE GID
This is the IPv6 address of the RNIC that the sender is using for
this SMC-R Link
Sender's QP number
The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the sender
created for this SMC-R link
Link number
An identifier assigned by the server that uniquely identifies the
link within the link group. This identifier is ONLY unique
within a link group. Provided by the server and echoed back by
the client
Link User ID
An opaque, implementation defined identifier assigned by the
sender and provided to the receiver solely for purposes of
display, diagnosis, network management, etc. The link user ID
should be unique across the sender's entire stack, including all
link other link groups.
Max Links
The maximum number of links the sender can support in a link
group. The maximum for this link group is the the smaller of the
values provided by the two peers.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
A.3.2. ADD LINK LLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type = 2 | length = 44 |Version|RsnCode|R|Z| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's RoCE |
+- MAC address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+- -+
| Sender's RoCE GID |
+- -+
| |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |Sender's QP number, bytes 1-2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sender QP byte3| Link number | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| Reserved |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 33 ADD LINK LLC message format
The ADD LINK LLC message is sent over an existing link in the link
group when a peer wishes to add an SMC-R link to an existing SMC-R
link group. It sent by the server to add a new SMC-R link to the
group, or by the client to request that the server add a new link,
for example when a new RNIC becomes active. When sent from the
client to the server, it represents a request that the server
initiate an ADD LINK exchange.
This message is sent immediately after the initial SMC link in the
group completes, as described in 3.4.1. First contact. It can also be
sent over an existing SMC-R link group at any time as new RNICs are
added and become available. Therefore there can be as few as 1 new
RMB RTokens to communicate, or several. Rtokens will be
communicated using ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages.
The contents of the ADD LINK LLC message are:
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 107]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Type
Type 2 indicates ADD LINK
Length
All LLC messages are 44 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
RsnCode
If the Z (rejection) flag is set, this field provides the reason
code. Values can be:
X'1' - no alternate path available: set when the server provides
the same MAC/GID as an existing SMC-R link in the group, and the
client does not have any additional RNICs available (i.e., server
is attempting to set up an asymmetric link but none is available)
R
Reply flag. When set indicates this is an ADD LINK REPLY
Z
Rejection flag. When set on reply indicates that the server's
ADD LINK was rejected by the client. When this flag is set, the
reason code will also be set.
Sender's RoCE MAC address
The MAC address of the sender's RNIC for the new SMC-R link. It
is required as some operating systems do not have neighbor
discovery or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.
Sender's RoCE GID
The IPv6 address of the RNIC that the sender is using for the new
SMC-R Link
Sender's QP number
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 108]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the sender
created for the new SMC-R link
Link number
An identifier for the new SMC-R link. This is assigned by the
server and uniquely identifies the link within the link group.
This identifier is ONLY unique within a link group. Provided by
the server and echoed back by the client
A.3.3. ADD LINK CONTINUATION LLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type = 3 | length = 44 |Version| Rsrvd |R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Linknum | NumRTokens | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Rkey/Rtoken Pair -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Rkey/Rtoken Pair or zeroes -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 34 ADD LINK CONTINUATION LLC message format
When a new SMC-R link is added to an SMC-R link group, it is
necessary to communicate the new link's RTokens for the RMBs that the
SMC-r link group can access. This message follows the ADD LINK and
provides the RTokens.
The server kicks off this exchange by sending the first ADD LINK
CONTINUATION LLC message, and the server controls the exchange as
described below.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 109]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o If the client and the server require the same number of ADD LINK
CONTINUATION messages to communicate their RTokens, the server
starts the exchange by sending the client the first ADD LINK
CONTINUATION request to the client with its RTokens, then the
client responds with an ADD LINK CONTINUATION response with its
RTokens, and so on until the exchange is completed.
o If the server requires more ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages than
the client, then after the client has communicated all its
RTokens, the server continues to send ADD LINK CONTINUATION
request messages to the client. The client continues to respond,
using empty (number of RTokens to be communicated = 0) ADD LINK
CONTINUATION response messages.
o If the client requires more ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages than
the server, then after communicating all its RTokens the server
will continue to send empty ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages to the
client to solicit replies with the client's RTokens, until all
have been communicated.
The contents of this message are:
Type
Type 3 indicates ADD LINK CONTINUATION
Length
All LLC messages are 44 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
R
Reply flag. When set indicates this is an ADD LINK CONTINUATION
REPLY
LinkNum
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 110]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The link number of the new link within the SMC link group that
Rkeys are being communicated for
NumRTokens
Number of RTokens remaining to be communicated (including the
ones in this message). If the value is less than or equal to 2,
this is the last message. If it is greater than 2, another
continuation message will be required, and its value will be the
value in this message minus 2, and so on until all Rkeys are
communicated.
Up to 2 Rkey/RToken pairs
These consist of an Rkey for an RMB that is known on the SMC-R
link that this message was sent over (the reference Rkey), paired
with the same RMB's RToken over the new SMC link. A full RToken
is not required for the reference because it is only being used
to distinguish which RMB it applies to, not address it.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reference Rkey |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| New Rkey |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- New Virtual Address -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 35 Rkey/Rtoken pair format
The contents of the RKey/RToken pair are:
Reference Rkey
The Rkey of the RMB as it is already known on the SMC-R link over
which this message is being sent. Required so that the peer knows
which RMB to associate the new Rtoken with.
New Rkey
The Rkey of this RMB as it is known over the new SMC-R link
New Virtual Address
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 111]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The virtual address of this RMB as it is known over the new SMC-R
link.
A.3.4. DELETE LINK LLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type = 4 | length = 44 |Version| Rsrvd |R|A|O| Rsrvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Linknum | Reason code (bytes 1-3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|RsnCode byte 4 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Reserved -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 36 DELETE LINK LLC message format
When the client or server detects that a QP or SMC-R link goes down
or needs to come down, it sends this message over one of the other
links in the link group.
When the DELETE Link is sent from the client it only serves as a
notification, and the client expects the server to send a DELETE LINK
Request in response. To avoid races, only the server will initiate
the actual DELETE LINK Request and Response sequence that results
from notification from the client.
The server can also initiate the DELETE Link without notification
from the client if it detects an error or if orderly link termination
was initiated.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 112]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The client may also request termination of the entire link group and
the server may terminate the entire link group using this message.
The contents of this message are:
Type
Type 4 indicates DELETE LINK
Length
All LLC messages are 44 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
R
Reply flag. When set indicates this is an ADD LINK CONTINUATION
REPLY
A
All flag. When set indicates that all links in the link group
are to be terminated. This terminates the link group.
O
Orderly flag. Indicates orderly termination. Orderly termination
is generally caused by an operator command rather than an error
on the link. When the client requests orderly termination, the
server may wait to complete other work before terminating.
LinkNum
The link number of the link to be terminated
RsnCode
The termination reason code. Currently defined reason codes are:
Request Reason Codes:
o X'00010000' = lost path
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 113]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
o X'00020000' = operator initiated termination
o X'00030000' = stack (program) initiated termination (link
inactivity)
o X'00040000' = LLC protocol violation
o Others TBD
Response Reason Codes:
o X'00100000' = Unknown Link ID (no link)
o X'00200000' = Unknown Link Group (no links)
o Others TBD
A.3.5. CONFIRM RKEY LLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type = 6 | length = 44 |Version| Rsrvd |R|D|Z| Rsrvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NumLinks | New RMB Rkey for this link (bytes 1-3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|ThisLink byte 4| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -+
| New RMB virtual address for this link |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -+
| |
+- Other link RMB specification or zeros -+
| |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -+
| |
+- -+
| Other link RMB specification or zeroes |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 37 CONFIRM RKEY LLC message format
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 114]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
The CONFIRM_RKEY flow can be sent at any time from either the client
or the server, to inform the peer that an RMB has been created or
deleted. The creator of a new RMB must inform its peer of the new
RMB's RToken for all SMC-R links in the SMC-R link group. The
deleter of an RMB must inform its peer of the deleted RMB's RToken
for all SMC-R links.
For RMB creation, the creator sends this message over the SMC link
that the first TCP connection that uses the new RMB is using. This
message contains the new RMB RToken for the SMC link that the message
is sent over, then it lists the sender's SMC links in the link group
paired with the new RToken for the new RMB for that link. This
message can communicate the new RTokens for 3 QPs: the QP this
message is sent over, and 2 others. If there are more than 3 links
in the SMC-R link group, CONFIRM_RKEY_CONTINUATION will be required.
For RMB deletion, the creator sends the same format of message with a
delete flag set, to inform the peer that the RMB's RTokens on all
links in the group are deleted.
In both cases, the peer responds by simply echoing the message with
the response flag set. If the response is a negative response, the
sender must recalculate the RToken set and start a new CONFIRM_RKEY
exchange from the beginning.
The contents of this message are:
Type
Type 6 indicates CONFIRM RKEY
Length
All LLC messages are 44 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
R
Reply flag. When set indicates this is a CONFIRM RKEY REPLY
D
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 115]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Delete flag. When set indicates that the indicated RMB is being
deleted
Z
Negative response flag. Set when an attempt to send CONFIRM RKEY
collides with a configuration change in the link group. When set
on a reply, indicates that the sender must recalculate the Rkey
and and redo this exchange after the current configuration change
is completed.
NumLinks
The number link/RToken pairs, including those provided in this
message, to be communicated.
Note: in this version of the architecture, 8 is the maximum
number of links supported in a link group.
New RMB Rkey for this link
The new RMB's Rkey as assigned on the link this message is being
sent over.
New RMB virtual address for this link
The new RMB's virtual address as assigned on the link this
messages is being sent over.
Other link RMB specification
The new RMB's specification on the other links in the link group,
as shown in Figure 38.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link number | RMB's Rkey for the specified link (bytes 1-3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|New Rkey byte 4| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -+
| RMB's virtual address for the specified link |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 38 Format of link number/Rkey pairs
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 116]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Link number
The link number for a link in the link group
RMB's Rkey for the specified link
The Rkey used to reach the RMB over the link whose number was
specified in the link number field.
RMB's virtual address for the specified link
The virtual address used to reach the RMB over the link whose
number was specified in the link number field.
A.3.6. TEST LINK LLC message format
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type = 7 | length = 44 |Version| Rsrvd |R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- User Data -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| Reserved |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 39 TEST LINK LLC message format
The TEST_LINK request can be sent from either peer to the other on an
existing SMC-R link at any time to test that the SMC-R link is active
and healthy at the stack level. A stack which receives a TEST_LINK
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 117]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
LLC message immediately sends back a TEST_LINK reply, echoing back
the user data. Also refer to 4.4.3. TCP Keepalive processing.
The contents of this message are:
Type
Type 7 indicates TEST LINK
Length
All LLC messages are 44 bytes long
Version
Version of the SMC-R protocol. Version 1 is the only currently
defined value.
R
Reply flag. When set indicates this is a CONFIRM RKEY REPLY
User Data
The receiver of this message echoes the sender's data back in a
TEST_LINK response LLC message
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 118]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Appendix B. Socket API considerations
A key design goal for SMC-R is to require no application changes for
exploitation. It is confined to socket applications using stream
(i.e. TCP protocol) sockets over IPv4 or IPv6. By virtue of the fact
that the switch to the SMC-R protocol occurs after a TCP connection
is established no changes are required in socket address family or in
the IP addresses and ports that the socket application are using.
Existing socket APIs that allow the application to retrieve local and
remote socket address structures for an established TCP connection
(for example, getsockname() and getpeername()) will continue to
function as they have before. Existing DNS setup and APIs for
resolving hostnames to IP addresses and vice versa also continue to
function without any changes. In general all of the usual socket APIs
that are used for TCP communicates (send APIs, recv APIs, etc.) will
continue to function as they do today even if SMC-R is used as the
underlying protocol.
Each SMC-R enabled implementation does however need to pay special
attention to any socket APIs that have a reliance on the underlying
TCP and IP protocols and ensure that their behavior in an SMC-R
environment is reasonable and minimizes impact to the application.
While the basic socket API set is fairly similar across different
Operating Systems, when it comes to advanced socket API options there
is more variability. Each implementation needs to perform a detailed
analysis of its API options and SMC-R impact and implications. As
part of that step a discussion or review with other implementations
supporting SMC-R would be useful to ensure a consistent
implementation.
setsockopt()/ getsockopt() considerations
These APIs allow socket applications to manipulate socket, transport
(TCP/UDP) and IP level options associated with a given socket.
Typically, a platform restricts the number of IP options available to
stream (TCP) socket applications given their connection oriented
nature. The general guideline here is to continue processing these
APIs in a manner that allows for application compatibility. Some
options will be relevant to the SMC-R protocol and will require
special processing under the covers. For example, the ability to
manipulate TCP send and receive buffer sizes is still valid for SMC-
R. However, other options may have no meaning for SMC-R. For
example, if an application enabled the TCP_NODELAY option to disable
Nagle's algorithm it should have no real effect in SMC-R
communications as there is no notion of Nagle's algorithm with this
new protocol. But the implementation must accept the TCP_NODELAY
option as it does today and save it so that it can be later extracted
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 119]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
via getsockopt() processing. Note that any TCP or IP level options
will still have an effect on any TCP/IP packets flowing for an SMC-R
connection (i.e. as part of TCP/IP connection establishment and
TCP/IP connection termination packet flows).
Under the covers manipulation of the TCP options will also include
the SMC layer setting and reading the SMC-R experimental option
before and after completion of the 3 way TCP handshake.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 120]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Appendix C. Rendezvous Error scenarios
Error scenarios in setting up and managing SMC-R links are discussed
in this section.
C.1. SMC Decline during CLC negotiation
A peer to the SMC-R CLC negotiation can send SMC Decline in lieu of
any expected CLC message to decline SMC and force the TCP connection
back to IP fabric. There can be several reasons for an SMC Decline
during the CMC negotiation including: RNIC went down, SMC-R forbidden
by local policy, subnet (IPv4) or prefix (IPv6) doesn't match, lack
of resources to perform SMC-R. In all cases when an SMC Decline is
sent in lieu of an expected CLC message, no confirmation is required
and the TCP connection immediately falls back to using the IP fabric.
To prevent ambiguity between CLC messages and application data, an
SMC Decline cannot "chase" another CLC message. SMC Decline can only
be sent in lieu of an expected CLC message. For example, if the
client sends SMC Proposal then its RNIC goes down, it must wait for
the SMC Accept for the server and then it can reply to that with an
SMC Decline.
This "no chase" rule means that if this TCP connection is not a first
contact between RoCE peers, a server cannot send SMC Decline after
sending SMC Accept - it can only either break the TCP connection.
Similarly, once the client sends SMC Confirm on a TCP connection that
isn't first contact, it is committed to SMC-R for this TCP connection
and cannot fall back to IP.
C.2. SMC Decline during LLC negotiation
For a TCP connection that represents first contact between RoCE
pairs, it is possible for SMC to fail back to IP during the LLC
negotiation. This is possible until the first contact SMC link is
confirmed. For example, see Figure 40. After a first contact SMC
link is confirmed, fallback to IP is no longer possible. The rule
that this translates to is: a first contact peer can send SMC Decline
at any time during LLC negotiation until it has successfully sent its
CONFIRM LINK (request or response) flow. After that point, it cannot
fall back to IP.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 121]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Host X -- Server Host Y -- Client
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| PeerID = PS1 | | PeerID = PC1 |
| +------+ +------+ |
| QP 8 |RNIC 1| SMC-R link 1 |RNIC 2| QP 64 |
| RKey X | |MAC MA|<-------------------->|MAC MB| | |
| | |GID GA| attempted setup |GID GB| | RKey Y2|
| \/ +------+ +------+ \/ |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
|| RMB | | | | RMB | |
|+--------+ | | +--------+ |
| /\ +------+ +------+ /\ |
| | |RNIC 3| |RNIC 4| | Rkey W2|
| | |MAC MC| |MAC MD| | |
| QP 9 |GID GC| |GID GD| QP65 |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
SYN / SYN-ACK / ACT TCP 3-way handshake with TCP option
<--------------------------------------------------------->
SMC Proposal / SMC Accept / SMC Confirm exchange
<-------------------------------------------------------->
CONFIRM LINK(request, link 1)
.........................................................>
CONFIRM LINK(response, link 1)
X...................................
:
: ROCE write faliure
:.................................>
SMC Decline(PC1, reason code)
<--------------------------------------------------------
Connection data flows over IP fabric
<------------------------------------------------------->
Legend:
------------ TCP/IP and CLC flows
............ RoCE (LLC) flows
Figure 40 SMC Decline during LLC negotiation
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 122]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
C.3. The SMC Decline window
Because SMC-R does not support fall-back to IP for a TCP connection
that is already using RDMA, there are specific rules on when SMC
Decline, which signals a fall-back to IP because of an error or
problem with the RoCE fabric, can be sent during TCP connection
setup. There is a point of no return after which a connection cannot
fall back to IP, and RoCE errors that occur after this point require
the connection to be broken with a RST flow in the IP fabric.
For first contact, that point of no return is after the Add Link LLC
message has been successfully sent for the second SMC-R link.
Specifically, the server cannot fall back to IP after receiving
either a positive write completion indication for the Add Link
request, or after receiving the Add Link response from the client,
whichever comes first. The client cannot fall back to IP after
either sending a negative Add Link response, receiving a positive
write complete on a positive Add Link response, or receiving a
Confirm Link for the second SMC-R link from the server, whichever
comes first.
For subsequent contact, that point of no return is after the last
send of the CLC negotiation completes. This, in combination with the
rule that error "chasers" are not allowed during CLC negotiation,
means that the server cannot send SMC Decline after sending an SMC
Accept, and the client cannot send an SMC Decline after sending an
SMC Confirm.
C.4. Out of synch conditions during SMC-R negotiation
The SMC Accept CLC message contains a "first contact" flag that
indicates to the client whether or not the server believes it is
setting up a new link group, or using an existing link group. This
flag is used to detect an out of synch condition between the client
and the server. The scenario detected is as follows: There is a
single existing SMC-R link between the peers. After the client sends
the SMC Proposal CLC message, the existing SMC-R link between the
client and the server fails. The client cannot chase the SMC
Proposal CLC message with an SMC Decline CLC message in this case
because the client does not yet know that the server would have
wanted to choose the SMC-R link that just crashed. The QP that
failed recovers before the server returns its SMC Accept CLC message.
This means that there is a QP but no SMC link. Since the server had
not yet learned of the SMC link failure when it sent the SMC Accept
CLC message, it attempts to re-use the SMC link that just failed.
This means the server would not set the "first contact" flag,
indicating to the client that the server thinks it is reusing an SMC-
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 123]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
R link. However the client does not have an SMC-R link that matches
the server's specification. Because the "first contact" flag is off,
the client realizes it is out of synch with the server and sends SMC
Decline to cause the connection to fall back to IP.
C.5. Timeouts during CLC negotiation
Because the SMC-R negotiation flows as TCP data, there are built-in
timeouts and retransmits at the TCP layer for individual messages.
Implementations also must to protect the overall TCP/CLC handshake
with a timer or timers to prevent connections from hanging
indefinitely due to SMC-R processing. This can be done with
individual timers for individual CLC messages or an overall timer for
the entire exchange, which may include the TCP handshake and the CLC
handshake under one timer or separate timers. This decision is
implementation dependent.
If the TCP and/or CLC handshakes time out, the TCP connection must be
terminated as it would be in a legacy IP environment when connection
setup doesn't complete in a timely manner. Because the CLC flows are
TCP messages, if they cannot be sent and received in a timely
fashion, the TCP connection is not healthy and would not work if
fallback to IP were attempted.
C.6. Protocol errors during CLC negotiation
Protocol errors occur during CLC negotiation when a message is
received that is not expected. For example, a peer that is expecting
a CLC message but instead receives application data has experienced a
protocol error, and also indicates a likely software error as the two
sides are out of synch. When application data is expected, this data
is not parsed to ensure it's not a CLC message.
When a peer is expecting a CLC negotiation message, any parsing error
in that message must be treated as application data. The CLC
negotiation messages are designed with beginning and ending
eyecatchers to help verify that they are actually the expected
message. If other parsing errors in an expected CLC message occur,
such as incorrect length fields or incorrectly formatted fields, the
message must be treated as application data.
All protocol errors must result in termination of the TCP connection.
No fallback to IP is allowed in the case of a protocol error because
if the protocols are out of synch, mismatched, or corrupted, then
data and security integrity cannot be ensured.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 124]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
C.7. Timeouts during LLC negotiation
Whenever a peer sends an LLC message to which a reply is expected, it
sets a timer after the send posts to wait for the reply. An expected
response may be a reply flavor of the LLC message (for example
CONFIRM LINK REPLY) or a new LLC message (for example an ADD LINK
CONTINUATION expected from the server by the client if there are more
Rkeys to communicate).
On LLC flows that are part of a first contact setup of a link group,
the value of the timer is implementation dependent but should be long
enough to allow the other peer have a write complete timeout and 2-3
retransmits of an SMC Decline on the TCP fabric. For LLC flows
that are maintaining the link group and not part of first contact
setup of a link group, the timers may be shorter. Upon receipt of an
expected reply the timer is cancelled. If a timer pops without a
reply having been received, the sender must initiate a recovery
action
During first contact processing, failure of an LLC verification timer
is a should-not-occur which indicates a problem with one of the
endpoints. The reason for this is that if there is a "routine"
failure in the RoCE fabric that causes an LLC verification send to
fail, the sender will get a write completion failure and will then
send SMC Decline to the partner. The only time an LLC verification
timer will expire on a first contact is when the sender thinks the
send succeeded but it actually didn't. Because of the reliable
connected nature of QP connections on the RoCE fabric, this is
indicates a problem with one of the peers, not with the RoCE fabric.
After the reliable connected QP for the first SMC-R link in a link
group is set up on initial contact, the client sets a timer to wait
for a RoCE verification message from the server that the QP is
actually connected and usable. If the server experiences a failure
sending its QP confirmation message, it will send SMC Decline, which
should arrive at the client before the client's verification timer
expires. If the client's timer expires without receiving either an
SMC Decline or a RoCE message confirmation from the server, there is
a problem either with the server or with the TCP fabric. In either
case the client must break the TCP connection and clean up the SMC-R
link.
There are two scenarios in which the client's response to the QP
verification message fails to reach the server. The main difference
is whether or not the client has successfully completed the send of
the CONFIRM LINK response.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 125]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
In the normal case of a problem with the RoCE path, the client will
learn of the failure by getting a write completion failure, before
the server's timer expires. In this case, the client sends an SMC
Decline CLC message to the server and the TCP connection falls back
to IP.
If the client's send of the Confirmation message receives a positive
return code but for some reason still does not reach the server, or
the client's SMC Decline CLC message fails to reach the server after
the client fails to send its RoCE confirmation message, then the
server's timer will time out and the server must break the TCP
connection by sending RST. This is expected to be a very rare case,
because if the client cannot send its CONFIRM LINK RSP LLC message,
the client should get a negative return code and initiate fallback to
IP. A client receiving a positive return code on a send that fails
to reach the server should be extremely rare.
C.7.1. Recovery actions for LLC timeouts and failures
The following table describes recovery actions for LLC timeouts. A
write completion failure or other indication of failure to send on
the send of the LLC command is treated the same as a timeout.
LLC Message: CONFIRM LINK from server (first contact)
Timer waits for: CONFIRM LINK reply from client
Recovery action: Break the TCP connection by sending RST and
clean up the link. The server should have received an SMC
Decline from the client by now if the client had an LLC send
failure.
LLC Message: CONFIRM LINK from server (not first contact)
Timer Waits for: CONFIRM LINK reply from client
Recovery action: Clean up the new link and set a timer to retry.
LLC Message: CONFIRM LINK REPLY from client (first contact)
Timer waits for: ADD LINK from server
Recovery action: Clean up the SMC-R link and break the TCP
connection by sending RST over the IP fabric. There is a problem
with the server. If the server had a send failure, it should
have have sent SMC Decline by now.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 126]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
LLC Message: ADD LINK from server (first contact)
Timer waits for: ADD LINK reply from client
Recovery action: Break the TCP connection with RST and clean up
RoCE resources. The connection is past the point where the
server can fall back to IP, and if the client had a send problem
it should have sent SMC Decline by now.
LLC Message: ADD LINK from server (not first contact)
Timer waits for: ADD LINK reply from client
Recovery action: Clean up resources (QP, RMB keys, etc) for the
new link and treat the link that the ADD LINK was sent over as if
it had failed.
LLC Message: ADD LINK REPLY from client (and there are more Rkeys to
be communicated)
Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from server
Recovery action: Treat the same as ADD LINK timer failure
LLC Message: ADD LINK REPLY or ADD LINK CONTINUATION reply from the
client (and there are no more Rkeys to be communicated)
Timer waits for: CONFIRM LINK from the server, over the new link
Recovery action: Clean up any resource allocated for the new link
and set a timer to send ADD LINK to the server if there is still
an unused RNIC on the client side. The new link has failed to set
up, but the link that the ADD LINK exchange occurred over is
unaffected.
LLC Message: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from server
Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION REPLY from client
Recovery action: Treat the same as ADD LINK timer failure
LLC Message: ADD LINK CONTINUATION reply from client (first contact,
and RMB count fields indicate that the server owes more ADD LINK
CONTINUATION messages)
Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from the server
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 127]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Recovery action: Clean up the SMC link and break the TCP
connection by sending RST. There is a problem with the server.
If the server had a send failure, it should have have sent SMC
Decline by now.
LLC Message: ADD LINK CONTINUATION reply from client (not first
contact and RMB count fields indicate that the server owes more ADD
LINK CONTINUATION messages)
Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from server
Recovery action: Treat as is if client detected link failure on
the link the ADD LINK exchange is using. Send DELETE LINK to
the server over another active link if one exists, otherwise
clean up the link group.
LLC Message: DELETE LINK from client
Timer waits for: DELETE LINK request from server
Recovery action: If the scope of the request is to delete a
single link, the surviving link, over which the client sent the
DELETE LINK is no longer usable either. If this is the last link
in the link group, end TCP connections over the link group by
sending RST packets. If there are other surviving links in the
link group, resend over a surviving link. Also send a DELETE
LINK over a surviving link for the link that the client attempted
to send the initial DELETE LINK message over. If the scope of
the request is to delete the entire link group, try resending on
other links in the link group until success is achieved. If all
sends fail, tear down the link group and any TCP connections that
exist on it.
LLC Message: DELETE LINK from server (scope: entire link group)
Timer waits for: Confirmation from the adapter that the message
was delivered.
Recovery action: Tear down the link group and any TCP connections
that exist over it.
LLC Message: DELETE LINK from server (scope: single link)
Timer waits for: DELETE LINK reply from the client
Recovery action: The over which the client sent the DELETE LINK
is no longer usable either. If this is the last link in the link
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 128]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
group, end TCP connections over the link group by sending RST
packets. If there are other surviving links in the link group,
resend over a surviving link. Also send a DELETE LINK over a
surviving link for the link that the server attempted to send the
initial DELETE LINK message over. If the scope of the request is
to delete the entire link group, try resending on other links in
the link group until success is achieved. If all sends fail,
tear down the link group and any TCP connections that exist on
it.
LLC Message: CONFIRM RKEY from the client
Timer waits for: CONFIRM RKEY REPLY from the server
Recovery action: Perform normal client procedures for detection
of failed link. The link over which the message was sent has
failed.
LLC Message: CONFIRM RKEY from the server
Timer waits for : CONFIRM RKEY REPLY from the client
Recovery action: Perform normal server procedures for detection
of failed link. The link over which the message was sent has
failed.
LLC Message: TEST LINK from the client
Timer waits for: TEST LINK REPLY from the server
Recovery action: Perform normal client procedures for detection
of failed link. The link over which the message was sent has
failed.
LLC Message: TEST LINK from the server
Timer waits for : TEST LINK REPLY from the client
Recovery action: Perform normal server procedures for detection
of failed link. The link over which the message was sent has
failed.
The following table describes recovery actions for invalid LLC
messages. These could be misformatted or contain out of synch data.
LLC Message received: CONFIRM LINK from server
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 129]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
What could be bad: Incorrect link information
Recovery action: Protocol error. The link must be brought down
by sending a DELETE LINK for the link over another link in the
link group if one exists. If this is first contact, fall back to
IP by sending SMC Decline to server.
LLC Message received: ADD LINK reply from client
What could be bad: Client side link information that would result
in a parallel link being set up
Recovery action: Parallel links are not permitted. Delete the
link by sending DELETE LINK to the client over another link in
the link group.
LLC Message received: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from the server or ADD
LINK CONTINUATION REPLY from the client
What could be bad: Number of RMBs provided doesn't match count
given on initial ADD LINK or ADD LINK reply message
Recovery action: Protocol error. Treat as if detected link outage
LLC Message received: DELETE LINK from client
What could be bad: Link indicated doesn't exist
Recovery action: assume timing window and ignore message.
LLC Message received: CONFIRM RKEY form either client or server
What could be bad: No Rkey provided for one or more of the links
in the link group
Recovery action: Treat as if detected failure of the link(s) for
which no RKEY was provided
LLC message received: TEST LINK reply
What could be bad: User data doesn't match what was sent in the
TEST LINK request
Recovery action: Treat as if detected that the link has gone
down. This is a protocol error
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 130]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
LLC message received: any unambiguously incorrect or out of synch LLC
message
What it indicates: Link is out of sync
Recovery action: Treat as if detected that the link has gone
down.
C.8. Failure to add second SMC-R link to a link group
When there is any failure in setting up the second SMC-R link in an
SMC-R link group, including confirmation timer expiration, the SMC-R
link group is allowed to continue, without available failover.
However this situation is extremely undesirable and the server must
endeavor to correct it as soon as it can.
The server peer in the SMC-R link group must set a timer to drive it
to retry setup of a failed additional SMC-R link. The server will
immediately retry the SMC-R link setup when the first of the
following events occurs:
o The retry timer expires
o A new RNIC becomes available to the server, on the same VLAN as
the SMC-R link group
o An "Add Link" LLC request message is received from the client,
which indicates availability of a new RNIC on the client side.
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 131]
Internet-Draft Shared Memory Communications over RDMA December 2012
Authors' Addresses
Mike Fox
IBM
3039 Cornwallis Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Email: mjfox@us.ibm.com
Constantinos (Gus) Kassimis
IBM
3039 Cornwallis Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Email: kassimis@us.ibm.com
Jerry Stevens
IBM
3039 Cornwallis Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Email: sjerry@us.ibm.com
Fox, et. al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 132]