wdiff draft-talpey-rdma-commit-00.txt draft-talpey-rdma-commit-01.txt

Internet-Draft
NFSv4 (provisionally) T. Talpey
Internet-Draft J. Pinkerton Microsoft
Updates: 5040, 5040 7306 (if approved) Microsoft T. Hurson
Intended status: Standards Track Intel
Expires: August 22, 2016 February 19, 2016 September 10, 2020 G. Agarwal
Marvell
T. Reu
Chelsio
March 9, 2020

RDMA Durable Write Commit
draft-talpey-rdma-commit-00 Extensions for Enhanced Memory Placement
draft-talpey-rdma-commit-01

Abstract

This document specifies extensions to RDMA (Remote Direct Memory
Access) protocols to provide capabilities in support of enhanced
remotely-directed data
consistency. placement on persistent memory-addressable
devices. The extensions include a new operation operations supporting remote
commitment to durability persistence of remotely-managed buffers, which can
provide enhanced guarantees and improve performance for low-
latency low-latency
storage applications. In addition to, and in support of these,
extensions to local behaviors are described, which may be used to
guide implementation, and to ease adoption. This document would
extend the IETF Remote updates
RFC5040 (Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMAP),
RFC5040, (RDMAP)) and RDMA updates
RFC7306 (RDMA Protocol Extensions, RFC7306. Extensions).

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2016. September 10, 2020.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(https://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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements for RDMA Flush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1. Non-Requirements . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1. Non-Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2. Requirements for Atomic Write . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Additional . . . . . . . 14
2.3. Requirements for RDMA Verify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4. Local Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Proposed Extensions . . . 16
3. RDMA Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17
3.1. Local RDMAP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17
3.1.1. Registration Semantics . RDMA Flush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Completion Semantics . . . . . . . 20
3.1.2. RDMA Verify . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.3. Platform Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.3. Atomic Write . . . . . 12
3.2. RDMAP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.4. Discovery of RDMAP Extensions . . . . . 12
3.2.1. RDMA Commit Request Header Format . . . . . . . 27
3.2. Local Extensions . . . 15
3.2.2. RDMA Commit Response Header Format . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.3. Ordering . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.1. Registration Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.4. Atomicity . 28
3.2.2. Completion Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.3. Platform Semantics . . . . . 17
3.2.5. Discovery of RDMAP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 29
4. Ordering and Completions Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 29
5. Error Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 30
5.1. Errors Detected at the Local Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 30
5.2. Errors Detected at the Remote Peer . . . . . . . . . . . 19 31
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 31
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 31
8. To Be Added or Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. 33
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. 33
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.3. 33
10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 35
Appendix A. DDP Segment Formats for RDMA Extensions . . . . . . 22 35
A.1. DDP Segment for RDMA Commit Flush Request . . . . . . . . . . . 22 35
A.2. DDP Segment for RDMA Commit Flush Response . . . . . . . . . . 23 . 35
A.3. DDP Segment for RDMA Verify Request . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.4. DDP Segment for RDMA Verify Response . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.5. DDP Segment for Atomic Write Request . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.6. DDP Segment for Atomic Write Response . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 38

1. Introduction

The RDMA Protocol (RDMAP) [RFC5040] and RDMA Protocol Extensions
(RDMAPEXT) [RFC7306] provide capabilities for secure, zero copy data
communications that preserve memory protection semantics, enabling
more efficient network protocol implementations. The RDMA Protocol
is part of the iWARP family of specifications which also include the
Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) [RFC5041], and others as
described in the relevant documents. For additional background on
RDMA Protocol applicability, see "Applicability of Remote Direct
Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and Direct Data Placement Protocol
(DDP)" RFC5045 [RFC5045].

RDMA protocols are enjoying good success in improving the performance
of remote storage access, and have been well-suited to semantics and
latencies of existing storage solutions. However, new storage
solutions are emerging with much lower latencies, driving new
workloads and new performance requirements. Also, storage
programming paradigms SNIANVM [SNIANVM] SNIANVMP [SNIANVMP] are driving new
requirements of the remote storage layers, in addition to driving
down latency tolerances. Overcoming these latencies, and providing
the means to achieve durability persistence and/or visibility without invoking
upper layers and remote CPUs for each such request, are the
motivators for the extensions proposed by in this document.

This document specifies the following extensions to the RDMA Protocol
(RDMAP) and its local memory ecosystem:

o RDMA Commit Flush - support for RDMA requests and responses with enhanced
placement semantics.

o Atomic Write - support for writing certain data elements into
memory in an atomically visible fashion.

o Verify - support for validating the contents of remote memory,
through use of integrity signatures.

o Enhanced memory registration semantics in support of durability. persistence
and visibility.

The extensions defined in this document do not require the RDMAP
version to change.

1.1. Glossary

This document is an extension of RFC 5040 and RFC 7306, RFC7306, and key words
are additionally defined in the glossaries of the referenced
documents.

The following additional terms are defined used in this document.

Commit: document as defined.

Flush: The placement submitting of previously written data into storage referenced by a target
Tagged Buffer from volatile
intermediate locations for subsequent placement, in a durable persistent
and/or globally visible fashion.

Durability:

Invalidate: The removal of data from volatile intermediate
locations.

Commit: Obsolescent previous synonym for Flush. Term to be deleted.

Persistent: The property that data is present present, readable and remains
stable after recovery from a power failure or other fatal error in
an upper layer or hardware. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Durability_(database_systems)>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Disk_buffer#Cache_control_from_the_host>[SCSI],
Disk_buffer#Cache_control_from_the_host>, [SCSI].

Globally Visible: The property of data being available for reading
consistently by all processing elements on a system. Global
visibility and persistence are not necessarily causally related;
either one may precede the other, or they may take effect
simultaneously, depending on the architecture of the platform.

2. Problem Statement

RDMA is widely deployed in support of storage and shared memory over
increasingly low-latency and high-bandwidth networks. The state of
the art today yields end-to-end network latencies on the order of one
to two microseconds for message transfer, and bandwidths exceeding 40
100 gigabit/s. These bandwidths are expected to increase over time,
with latencies decreasing as a direct result.

In storage, another trend is emerging - greatly reduced latency of
persistently storing data blocks. While best-of-class Hard Disk
Drives (HDDs) have delivered average latencies of several
milliseconds for many years, Solid State Disks (SSDs) have improved
this by one to two orders of magnitude. Technologies such as NVM
Express NVMe [1] yield even higher-performing results by eliminating
the traditional storage interconnect. The latest technologies
providing memory-based persistence, such as Nonvolatile Memory DIMM
NVDIMM [2], places storage-like semantics directly on the memory bus,
reducing latency to less than a microsecond and increasing bandwidth
to potentially many tens of gigabyte/s. [supporting data to be added]

RDMA protocols, in turn, are used for many storage protocols,
including NFS/RDMA RFC5661 [RFC5661] RFC5666 [RFC5666] RFC5667
[RFC5667], RFC8166 [RFC8166] RFC8267
[RFC8267], SMB Direct MS-SMB2 [SMB3] MS-SMBD [SMBDirect] and iSER
RFC7145 [RFC7145], to name just a few. These protocols allow storage
and computing peers to take full advantage of these highly performant
networks and storage technologies to achieve remarkable throughput,
while minimizing the CPU overhead needed to drive their workloads.
This leaves more computing resources available for the applications,
which in turn can scale to even greater levels. Within the context
of Cloud-based environments, and through scale-out approaches, this
can directly reduce the number of servers that need to be deployed,
making such attributes highly compelling.

However, limiting factors come into play when deploying ultra-low
latency storage in such environments:

o The latency of the fabric, and of the necessary RDMA message
exchanges to ensure reliable transfer is now higher than that of
the storage itself.

o The requirement that storage be resilient to failure requires that
multiple copies be committed in multiple locations across the
fabric, adding extra hops which increase the latency and computing
demand placed on implementing the resiliency.

o Processing is required at the receiver in order to ensure that the
storage data has reached a persistent state, and acknowledge the
transfer so that the sender can proceed.

o Typical latency optimizations, such as polling a receive memory
location for a key that determines when the data arrives, can
create both correctness and security issues because this approach
requires the memory remain open to writes and therefore the buffer
may not remain stable after the application determines that the IO
has completed. This is of particular concern in security
conscious environments.

The first issue is fundamental, and due to the nature of serial,
shared communication channels, presents challenges that are not
easily bypassed. Communication cannot exceed the speed of light, for
example, and serialization/deserialization plus packet processing
adds further delay. Therefore, an RDMA solution which offloads and
reduces the overhead of exchanges which encounter such latencies is
highly desirable.

The second issue requires that outbound transfers be made as
efficient as possible, so that replication of data can be done with
minimal overhead and delay (latency). A reliable "push" RDMA
transfer method is highly suited to this.

The third issue requires that the transfer be performed without an
upper-layer exchange required. Within security contraints, RDMA
transfers
transfers, arbitrated only by lower layers into well-defined and pre-
advertised buffers buffers, present an ideal solution.

The fourth issue requires significant CPU activity, consuming power
and valuable resources, and additionally is may not be guaranteed by the RDMA
protocols, which make no guarantee requirement of the order in which certain
received data is placed or becomes visible; such guarantees are made
only after signaling a completion to upper layers.

The RDMAP and DDP protocols, together, provide data transfer
semantics with certain consistency guarantees to both the sender and
receiver. Delivery of data transferred by these protocols is said to
have been Placed in destination buffers upon Completion of specific
operations. In general, these guarantees are limited to the
visibility of the transferred data within the hardware domain of the
receiver (data sink). Significantly, the guarantees do not
necessarily extend to the actual storage of the data in memory cells,
nor do they convey any guarantee of durability, that is, that the data may not be integrity is intact,
nor that it remains present after a catastrophic failure such as power
loss. failure. These
guarantees may be provided by upper layers, such as the ones mentioned.
mentioned, after processing the Completions, and performing the
necessary operations.

The NFSv4.1 NFSv4.1, SMB3 and iSER protocols are, respectively, file and
block oriented, and have been used extensively for providing access
to hard disk and solid state flash drive media. Such devices incur
certain latencies in their operation, from the millisecond-order
rotational and seek delays of rotating disk hardware, or the 100-microsecond-
order 100-
microsecond-order erase/write and translation layers of solid state
flash. These file and block protocols have benefited from the
increased bandwidth, lower latency, and markedly lower CPU overhead
of RDMA to provide excellent performance for such media,
approximately 30-50 microseconds for 4KB writes in leading
implementations.

These protocols employ a "pull" model for write: the client, or
initiator, sends an upper layer write request which contains a an RDMA
reference to the data to be written. The upper layer protocols
encode this as one or more memory regions. The server, or target,
then prepares the request for local write execution, and "pulls" the
data with an RDMA Read. After processing the write, a response is
returned. There are therefore two or more roundtrips on the RDMA
network in processing the request. This is desirable for several
reasons, as described in the relevant specifications, but it incurs
latency. However, since as mentioned the network latency has been so
much less than the storage processing, this has been a sound
approach.

Today, a new class of Storage Class Memory is emerging, in the form
of Non-Volatile DIMM and NVM Express devices, among others. These
devices are characterized by further reduced latencies, in the 10-
microsecond-order range for NVMe, and sub-microsecond for NVDIMM.
The 30-50 microsecond write latencies of the above file and block
protocols are therefore from one to two orders of magnitude larger
than the storage media! The client/server processing model of
traditional storage protocols are no longer amortizable at an
acceptable level into the overall latency of storage access, due to
their requiring request/response communication, CPU processing by the
both server and client (or target and initiator), and the interrupts
to signal such requests.

Another important property of certain such devices is the requirement
for explicitly requesting that the data written to them be made
durable.
persistent. Because durability persistence requires that data be committed to
memory cells, it is a relatively expensive operation in time (and
power), and in order to maintain the highest device throughput and
most efficient operation, the device "commit" operation is explicit.
When the data is written by an application on the local platform,
this responsibility naturally falls to that application (and the CPU
on which it runs). However, when data is written by current RDMA
protocols, no such semantic is provided. As a result, upper layer
stacks, and the target CPU, must be invoked to perform it, adding
overhead and latency that is now highly undesirable.

When such devices are deployed as the remote server, or target,
storage, and when such a durability persistence can be requested and guaranteed
remotely, a new transfer model can be considered. Instead of relying
on the server, or target, to perform requested processing and to
reply after the data is durably persistently stored, it becomes desirable for
the client, or initiator, to perform these operations itself. By
altering the transfer models to support a "push mode", that is, by
allowing the requestor to push data with RDMA Write and subsequently
make it durable, persistent, a full round trip can be eliminated from the
operation. Additionally, the signaling, and processing overheads at
the remote peer (server or target) can be eliminated. This becomes
an extremely compelling latency advantage.

In DDP (RFC5041), data is considered "placed" when it is submitted by
the RNIC to the system. This operation is commonly an i/o bus write,
e.g. via PCI. The submission is ordered, but there is no
confirmation or necessary guarantee that the data has yet reached its
destination, nor become visible to other devices in the system. The
data will eventually do so, but possibly at a later time. The act of
"delivery", on the other hand, offers a stronger semantic,
guaranteeing that not only have prior operations been executed, but
also guaranteeing any data is in a consistent and visible state.
Generally however, such "delivery" requires raising a completion
event, necessarily involving the host CPU. This is a relatively
expensive, and latency-bound operation. Some systems perform "DMA
snooping" to provide a somewhat higher guarantee of visibility after
delivery and without CPU intervention, but others do not. The RDMA
requirements remain the same, therefore, upper layers may make no
broad assumption. Such platform behaviors, in any case, do not
address persistence.

The extensions in this document primarily address a new "flush to
persistence" RDMA operation. This operation, when invoked by a
connected remote RDMA peer, can be used to request that previously-
written data be moved into the persistent storage domain. This may
be a simple flush to a memory cell, or it may require movement across
one or more busses within the target platform, followed by an
explicit persistence operation. Such matters are beyond the scope of
this specification, which provides only the mechanism to request the
operation, and to signal its successful completion.

In a similar vein, many applications desire to achieve visibility of
remotely-provided data, and to do so with minimum latency. One
example of such applications is "network shared memory", where
publish-subscribe access to network-accessible buffers is shared by
multiple peers, possibly from applications on the platform hosting
the buffers, and others via network connection. There may therefore
be multiple local devices accessing the buffer - for example, CPUs,
and other RNICs. The topology of the hosting platform may be
complex, with multiple i/o, memory, and interconnect busses,
requiring multiple intervening steps to process arriving data.

To address this, the extension additionally provides a "flush to
global visibility", which requires the RNIC to perform platform-
dependent processing in order to guarantee that the contents of a
specific range are visible for all devices that access them. On
certain highly-consistent platforms, this may be provided natively.
On others, it may require platform-specific processing, to flush data
from volatile caches, invalidate stale cached data from others, and
to empty queued pending operations. Ideally, but not universally,
this processing will take place without CPU intervention. With a
global visibility guarantee, network shared memory and similar
applications will be assured of broader compatibility and lower
latency across all hardware platforms.

Subsequently, many applications will seek to obtain a guarantee that
the integrity of the data has been preserved after it has been
flushed to a persistent or globally visible state. This may be
enforced at any time. Unlike traditional block-based storage, the
data provided by RDMA is neither structured nor segmented, and is
therefore not self-describing with respect to integrity. Only the
originator of the data, or an upper layer, is in possession of that.
Applications requiring such guarantees may include filesystem or
database logwriters, replication agents, etc.

To provide an additional integrity guarantee, a new operation is
provided by the extension, which will calculate, and optionally
compare an integrity value for an arbitrary region. The operation is
ordered with respect to preceding and subsequent operations, allowing
for a request pipeline without "bubbles" - roundtrip delays to
ascertain success or failure.

Finally, once data has been transmitted and directly placed by RDMA,
flushed to its final state, and its integrity verified, applications
will seek to commit the result with a transaction semantic. The
previous application examples apply here, logwriters and replication
are key, and both are highly latency- and integrity-sensitive. They
desire a pipelined transaction marker which is placed atomically to
indicate the validity of the preceding operations. They may require
that the data be in a persistent and/or globally visibile state,
before placing this marker.

Together the above discussion argues for a new "one sided" transfer
model supporting extended remote durability placement guarantees, provided by
the RDMA transport, and used directly by upper layers on a data
source, to control durable persistent storage of data on a remote data sink
without requiring its remote interaction. Existing, or new, upper
layers can use such a model in several ways, and evolutionary steps
to support
durability persistence guarantees without required protocol changes
are explored in the remainder of this document.

Note that is intended that the requirements and concept of these
extensions can be applied to any similar RDMA protocol, and that a
compatible remote durability model can be applied broadly.

2.1. Requirements for RDMA Flush

The fundamental new requirement for extending RDMA protocols is to
define the property of _durability_. _persistence_. This new property drives the is to be
expressed by new operations to extend Placement as defined in
existing RDMA protocols.
When Placed, these The RFC5040 protocols require only specify that
Placement means that the data be is visible consistently to both the platform within a
platform-defined domain on which the buffer resides, and to remote
peers across the network via RDMA. RDMA to an adapter within the domain.
In modern hardware designs, this buffer can reside in memory, or also
in cache, if that cache is part of the hardware consistency domain.
Many designs use such caches extensively to improve performance of
local access.

Durability,

Persistence, by contrast, requires that the data not only be
consistently visible, it further requires that the buffer contents be
preserved across catastrophic failures. While it is possible for
caches to be durable, persistent, they are typically not. not, or they provide the
persistence guarantee for a limited period of time, for example,
while backup power is applied. Efficient designs, in fact, lead many most
implementations to simply make them volatile. In these designs, an
explicit flush operation, operation (writing dirty data from caches), often
followed by an explicit
commit, commit (ensuring the data has reached its
destination and is in a persistent state), is required to provide
this guarantee. In some platforms, these operations may be combined.

For the RDMA protocol to remotely provide durability such guarantees, the
new requirement an
extension is mandatory. required. Note that this does not imply support for durability
persistence or global visibility by the RDMA hardware implementation
itself; it is entirely acceptable for the RDMA implementation to
request durability these from another subsystem, for example, by requesting that
the CPU perform the flush and commit. commit, or that the destination memory
device do so. But, in an ideal implementation, the RDMA
implementation will be able to act as a master and provide these
services without further work requests. requests local to the data sink. Note,
it is possible that different buffers will require different durability
processing, for example one buffer may reside in persistent memory,
while another may place its durable blocks in a persistent storage device. Many such
memory-addressable designs are entering the market, from NVDIMM to
NVMe and even to SSDs and hard drives.

Therefore, additionally any local memory registration primitive will
be enhanced to specify an new optional durability attribute, placement attributes, along with
any local information required to achieve it. them. These attributes remain local do
not explicitly traverse the network - like existing local memory
registration, the region is fully described by a { handle, STag, Tagged
offset, length } descriptor, and such aspects of the local physical
address, memory type, protection (remote read, remote write,
protection key), etc are not instantiated in the protocol. The Indeed,
each local RDMA implementation maintains these, and strictly performs
processing based on them, but and they are not known exposed to the peer, and therefore peer. Such
considerations are not a matter for discussed in the protocol. security model [RDMAP Security
[RFC5042]].

Note, additionally, that by describing durability such attributes only through
the presence of an optional durability attribute, property of each region, it is possible
to describe regions referring to the same physical segment as both durable and non-durable, a
combination of attributes, in order to enable efficient processing. When commit is remotely requested
Processing of a non-
durable region, the result is not required writes to regions marked as persistent, globally
visible, or neither ("ordinary" memory) may be that the optimized
appropriately. For example, such memory can be registered multiple
times, yielding multiple different Steering Tags which nonetheless
merge data is
durable. in the underlying memory. This can be used by upper
layers to enable bulk-type processing with low overhead, by assigning
specific durability attributes through use of the Steering Tag.

The intention is that if

When the underlying region is marked as non-
volatile, persistent, that the
placement of data into it persistence is also non-volatile guaranteed only after a
successful RDMA Flush directed to the Steering Tag which holds the
persistent attribute (i.e. any volatile buffering between the network
and the underlying storage has been flushed). flushed, and the appropriate
platform- and device-specific steps have been performed).

To enable the maximum generality, the commit RDMA Flush operation is
specified to act on a list set of bytes in a region, specified by a
standard RDMA { handle, STag, Tagged offset, length } regions. The
requirement descriptor. It is
required that each byte of each the specified region segment be made
durable in the requested
state before the response to the commit Flush is generated. However,
depending on the implementation, other bytes in the region, or in
other regions regions, may be
made durable acted upon as part of processing any commit. Any RDMA
Flush. In fact, any data in any buffer destined for persistent, durable persistent
storage, may become durable persistent at any time, even if not requested
explicitly. For example, the host system may flush cache entries due
to cache pressure, or as part of platform housekeeping activities.
Or, a simple and stateless approach would to flushing a specific range
might be for all data be flushed and
committed, made persistent, system-wide. A
possibly more efficient implementation might track previously written
bytes, or blocks with "dirty" bytes, and commit flush only those. those to
persistence. Either result provides the required guarantee.

The length of the region list, and the maximum amount of
data that can be made durable in a single request, are implementation
dependent and its protocol expression is to be described.

The commit RDMA Flush operation is specified to provides a response but does not return a
status, which may be
zero on success but or can result in an RDMA Terminate event upon failure. A
region permission check is performed first, and may take other values fail prior to be determined. Several
possibilities present themselves. any
attempt to process data. The commit RDMA Flush operation may fail to make
the data durable, persistent, perhaps due to a hardware failure, or a change
in device capability (device read-only, device wear, etc). The data,
however, may not have been lost and is still present in the buffer.
Or, the
device itself may support an integrity check, similar to modern error
checking and corection (ECC) memory or media error detection on hard
drive surfaces, and its status is returned. which may signal failure. Or, the request may exceed
device limits in size or even transient attribute such as temporary
media failure. The behavior of the device itself is beyond the scope
of this specification.

Because the commit RDMA Flush involves processing on the local platform and
the actual storage device, in addition to being ordered with certain
other RDMA operations, it is expected to take a certain time to be
performed. For this reason, the commit operation is required to be defined
as a "queued" operation on the RDMA device, and therefore also the
protocol. The RDMA protocol supports RDMA Read (RFC5040) and Atomic
(RFC7306) in such a fashion. The iWARP family defines a "queue
number" with queue-
specific queue-specific processing that is naturally suited for
this. Queuing provides a convenient means for supporting ordering
among other operations, and for flow control. Flow control for RDMA
Reads and Atomics on any given Queue Pair share incoming and outgoing
crediting depths ("IRD/ORD");
commit will either operations in this specification share these, or
these values and do not define their own separate values.

2.1.1. Non-Requirements

The protocol extension does not include a "RDMA Write with durability", to persistence", that
is, a modifier on the existing RDMA Write operation. While it might
seem a logical approach, several issues become apparent:

The existing RDMA Write operation is a tagged DDP request which is
unacknowledged at the RDMA
layer. DDP layer (RFC5042). Requiring it to
provide an indication of remote durability persistence would require it to
have an acknowledgement, which would be an undesirable extension
to the existing defined operation.

Such an operation would require flow control and therefore also
buffering on the responding peer. Existing RDMA Write semantics
are not flow controlled and as tagged transfers are by design
zero-copy i.e. unbuffered. Requiring these would introduce
potential pipeline stalls and increase implementation complexity
in a critical performance path.

The operation at the initiator requesting peer would stall until the
acknowledgement of completion, significantly changing the semantic
of the existing operation, and complicating software by blocking
the send work queue. queue, a significant new semantic for RDMA Write
work requests. As each operation would be self-describing with
respect to durability, persistence, individual operations would therefore
block with differing semantics. semantics and complicate the situation even
further.

Even for the possibly-common case of commiting flushing after every write,
it is highly undesirable to impose new optional semantics on an
existing operation. operation, and therefore also on the upper layer protocol
implementation. And, the same result can be achieved by sending
the commit Flush merged in the same network packet, and since the RDMA
Write is unacknowledged while the commit RDMA Flush is always replied-to,
no additional overhead is imposed on the combined exchange.

[Further expand on

For these reasons, it is deemed a non-requirement to extend the undesirable nature
existing RDMA Write operation.

Similarly, the extension does not consider the use of such a change.]

2.2. Additional Semantics

Ordering w.r.t. RDMA Write, receives, Read to
implement Flush. Historically, an RDMA Read, other commits.
Also, Read has been used by
applications to ensure ordering ensures similar remote semantics that previously written data has been
processed by the responding RNIC and has been submitted for ordered
Placement. However, this is inadequate for implementing the required
RDMA Flush:

RDMA Read guarantees only that previously written data has been
Placed, it provides no such guarantee that the data has reached
its destination buffer. In practice, an RNIC satisfies the RDMA
Read requirement by simply issuing all PCIe Writes prior to local
issuing any PCIe Reads.

Such PCIe Reads must be issued by the RNIC after all such PCIe
Writes, therefore flushing a large region requires the RNIC and
its attached bus to strictly order (and not cache) its writes, to
"scoreboard" its writes, or to perform PCIe Reads to the entire
region. The commit operation former approach is significantly complex and
expensive, and the latter approach requires a large amount of PCIe
and network read bandwidth, which are often unnecessary and
expensive. The Reads, in any event, may be satisfied by platform-
specfic caches, never actually reaching the destination memory or
other device.

The RDMA Read may begin execution at any time once the request is
fully received, queued, and the prior RDMA Write requirement has
been satisfied. This means that the RDMA Read operation may not
be ordered with respect to certain other queued operations, such as Verify
and it Atomic Write, in addition to other RDMA Flush operations.

The RDMA Read has no specific error semantic to detect failure,
and the response may be advantageous generated from any cached data in a
consistently Placed state, regardless of where it may reside. For
this reason, an RDMA Read may proceed without necessarily
verifying that a previously ordered "flush" has succeeded or
failed.

RDMA Read is heavily used by existing RDMA consumers, and the
semantics are therefore implemented by the existing specification.
For new applications to combine certain actions
into further expect an extended RDMA Read
behavior would require an upper layer negotiation to determine if
the same request, data sink platform and RNIC appropriately implemented them, or requests
to silently ignore the requirement, with specific ordering the resulting failure to
meet the
commit. Examples requirement. An explicit extension, rather than
depending on an overloaded side effect, ensures this will not
occur.

Again, for these reasons, it is deemed a non-requirement to be discussed include:

Additional optional payload reuse or
extend the existing RDMA Read operation.

Therefore, no changes to existing specified RDMA operations are
proposed, and the protocol is unchanged if the extensions are not
invoked.

2.2. Requirements for Atomic Write

The persistence of data is a key property by which applications
implement transactional behavior. Transactional applications, such
as databases and log-based filesystems, among many others, implement
a "two phase commit" wherein a write is made durable, and *only upon
success*, a validity indicator for the written data is set. Such
semantics are challenging to provide over an RDMA fabric, as it
exists today. The RDMA Write operation does not generate an
acknowledgement at the RDMA layers. And, even when an RDMA Write is
delivered, if the destination region is persistent, its data can be placed
made persistent at any time, even before a Flush is requested. Out-
of-order DDP processing, packet fragmentation, and other matters of
scheduling transfers can introduce partial delivery and ordering
differences. If a region is made durable persistent, or even globally
visible, before such sequences are complete, significant application-
layer inconsistencies can result. Therefore, applications may
require fine-grained control over the placement of bytes. In current
RDMA storage solutions, these semantics are implemented in upper
layers, potentially with additional upper layer message signaling,
and corresponding roundtrips and blocking behaviors.

In addition to controlling placement of bytes, the ordering of such
placement can be important. By providing an
atomic fashion after ordered relationship
among write and flush operations, a basic transaction scenario can be
constructed, in a way which can function with equal semantics both
locally and remotely. In a "log-based" scenario, for example, a
relatively large segment (log "record") is placed, and made durable.
Once persistence of the requested commit. segment is assured, a second small segment
(log "pointer") is written, and optionally also made persistent. The
visibility of the second segment is used to imply the validity, and
persistence, of the first. Any sequence of such log-operation pairs
can thereby always have a single valid state. In case of failure,
the resulting string (log) of transactions can therefore be recovered
up to and including the final state.

Such semantics are typically a challenge to implement on general
purpose hardware platforms, and a variety of application approaches
have become common. Generally, they employ a small, well-aligned
atom of storage for the second segment (the one used for validity).
For example, an integer or pointer, aligned to natural memory address
boundaries and CPU and other cache attributes, is stored using
instructions which provide for atomic placement. Existing RDMA
protocols, however, provide no such capability.

This document specifies an Atomic Write extension, which,
appropriately constrained, can serve to provide similar semantics. A
small (64 bit) payload, sent in a request which is ordered with
respect to prior RDMA Flush operations on the same, or other single, request, same stream and
targeted at a segment which is aligned such that it can be made durable placed in
a single hardware operation, can be used to satisfy the "log update" scenario (describe previously
described scenario. Note that the visibility of this in
more detail).

Immediate payload can
also serve as an indication that all prior operations have succeeded,
enabling a highly efficient application-visible memory semaphore.

2.3. Requirements for RDMA Verify

An additional matter remains with persistence - the integrity of the
persistent data. Typically, storage stacks such as filesystems and
media approches such as SCSI T10 DIF or filesystem integrity checks
such as ZFS provide for block- oir file-level protection of data at
rest on storage devices. With RDMA protocols and physical memory, no
such stacks are present. And, to be optionally provided add such support would introduce
CPU processing and its inherent latency, counter to the goals of the
remote storage approach. Requiring the peer to verify by remotely
reading the data is prohibitive in a completion both bandwidth and latency, and
without additional mechanisms to ensure the actual stored data is
read (and not a copy in some volatile cache), can not provide the
necessary result.

To address this, an integrity operation is required. The integrity
check is initiated by the upper layer on or application, which
optionally computes the remote peer. Such expected hash of a given segment of arbitrary
size, sending the hash via an indication can be used to
signal RDMA Verify operation targeting the upper layer that certain data has been placed in
RDMA segment on the
peer's buffer, responder, and the responder calculating and has been made available durably.

Remote invalidation, as
optionally performed by existing RDMA
protocols for other operations.

Upper Layer message, verifying the hash on the indicated data, bypassing any
volatile copies remaining in caches. The responder responds with its
computed hash value, or optionally, terminates the connection with an
appropriate error status upon mismatch. Specifying this optional full message
termination behavior enables a transaction to be provided in a
completion after sent as WRITE-FLUSH-
VERIFY-ATOMICWRITE, without any pipeline bubble. The result (carried
by the commit.

Integrity check for subsequently ordered ATOMIC_WRITE) will not not be committed data, which could take
as valid if any prior operation is terminated, and in this case,
recovery can be initiated by the form requestor immediately from the point
of a
value to failure. On the other hand, an errorless "scrub" can be verified before returning, or a
implemented without the optional termination behavior, by providing
no value for the expected hash. The responder will return the
computed and
returned which hash of the initiator can use contents.

The hash algorithm is not specified by the RDMA protocol, instead it
is left to the upper layer to verify. Specification select an appropriate choice based upon
the strength, security, length, support by the RNIC, and other
criteria. The size of the checksum or resulting hash algorithm, or its negotiation is therefore also not
specified by an upper
layer, will be necessary if adopted.

3. Proposed Extensions the RDMA protocol, but is dictated by the hash
algorithm. The extensions in this document fall into two categories:

o Local behavior extensions

o Protocol extensions

These categories are described, RDMA protocol becomes simply a transport for
exchanging the values.

It should be noted that the design of the operation, passing of the
hash value from requestor to responder (instead of, for example,
computing it at the responder and may simply returning it), allows both
peers to determine immediately whether the segment is considered
valid, permitting local processing by both peers if that is not the
case. For example, a known-bad segment can be implemented, separately.

3.1. immediately marked as
such ("poisoned") by the responder platform, requiring recovery
before permitting access. [cf ACPI, JEDEC, SNIA NVMP specifications]

2.4. Local Extensions

Here discuss memory registration, Semantics

The new operations imply new access methods ("verbs") to local
persistent memory and protection
attributes, and applicability which backs registrations. Registrations of memory
which support persistence will follow all existing practices to both
ensure permission-based remote and "local" (receives).

3.1.1. Registration Semantics

New platform-specific attributes to access. The RDMA registration, allows them to
be processed at protocols do not
expose these permissions on the server *only* without client knowledge, or
protocol exposure. No client knowledge - ensures future interop

New wire, instead they are contained in
local PM memory registration example:

PMType includes type of PM i.e. plain RAM, or "commit
required", or PCIe-resident, or any other semantics. Existing attributes are Remote
Read and Remote Write, which are granted individually through local platform-
specific processing

Mode includes disposition of data
registration on the machine. If an RDMA Read and/or write e.g.
Cacheable after or RDMA Write operation (needed by CPU on data sink)

Handle
arrives which targets a segment without the appropriate attribute,
the connection is processed in receiving NIC during terminated.

In support of the new operations, new memory attributes are needed.
For RDMA operation Flush, two "Flushable" attributes provide permission to
specified region, under control of original Mode.

Also consider whether potential "integrity check" behavior
invoke the operation on memory in the region for persistence and/or
global visibility. When registering, along with the attribute,
additional local information can be
made per-region. If so, piggybacking it on provided to the registration enables
selecting RDMA layer such
as the integrity hash, and making its processing optional and
straightforward.

Any other per-region durability type of memory, the necessary processing to be explored.

3.1.2. Completion Semantics

Transparency make its contents
persistent, etc. If the attribute is possible when requested for memory which
cannot be persisted, it also allows the local provider to return an
error to the upper layer, obviating the upper layer from providing
the region to the remote peer.

For RDMA Verify, the "Verifiable" attribute provides Completions (e.g.
messages or immediate data)

Commit permission to durability can be piggybacked by data sink upon signaling.
Upper layer may
compute the hash of memory in the region. Again, along with the
attribute, additional information such as the hash algorithm for the
region is provided to the local operation. If the attribute is
requested for non-persistent memory, or if the hash algorithm is not need
available, the local provider can return an error to explicitly Commit in this case, which the upper layer.
In the case of
course are dependent on success, the upper layer and workload.

Can apply this concept to RDMA Write can exchange the necessary
information with Immediate Or ...ordinary
receives. Strong possibilities exist - explore here.

Ordering the remote peer. Note that the algorithm is not
identified by the on-the-wire operation as a result. Establishing
the choice of operations hash for each region is critical: Such done by the local consumer, and
each hash result is merely transported by the RDMA Writes cannot protocol. Memory
can be
allowed to "pass" durability. Therefore, protocol implications registered under multiple regions, if differing hashes are
required, for example unique keys may
also exist.

Discuss optional behaviors explored in prior section, and whether/how
they generate completions.

3.1.3. Platform Semantics

Writethrough behavior on durable regions and reasons be provisoned to implement
secure hashing. Also note that, for same.
Consider requiring/recommending a local writethrough behavior on any
durable region, certain "reversible" hash
algorithms, this may allow peers to support a nonblocking hurry-up effectively read the memory,
therefore, the local platform may require additional read permissions
to avoid future
stalls be associated with the Verifiable permission, when such algorithms
are selected.

The Atomic Write operation requires no new attributes, however it
does require the "Remote Write" attribute on the target region, as is
true for any remotely requested write. If the Atomic Write
additionally targets a subsequent cache flush, prior to a commit. Also, it
would enhance durability.

PCI extension to support Commit Allow NIC Flushable region, the RDMA Flush is performed
separately. It is never generally possible to provide durability
directly achieve persistence
atomically with placement, even locally.

3. RDMA Protocol Extensions

The extensions in this document fall into two categories:

o Protocol extensions

o Local behavior extensions

These categories are described, and efficiently To Memory, CPU, PCI Root, PM device, PCIe
device, ... Avoids CPU interaction Supports strong data consistency
model Performs equivalent of: CLFLUSHOPT (region list) PCOMMIT Or if
NIC is on memory bus or within CPU complex... Other possibilities
exist

3.2. may be implemented, separately.

3.1. RDMAP Extensions

This document defines a new RDMA operation, "RDMA Commit".

The wire-
related wire-related aspects of the proposed protocol extensions are discussed in this
section.

This section and
section.This document defines the ones following present one possible approach
toward defining the wire protocol defined by the above discussion.
The definitions are included for initial discussion and do not
comprise a complete specification. Certain additional protocol
features of any potential new extension, such as any associated
Immediate Data, Solicited Events, Remote Invalidation, ULP Message
inclusion, etc, are left to a later version. RDMA operations.

For reference, Figure 1 depicts the format of the DDP Control and
RDMAP Control Fields, in the style and convention of RFC 5040 RFC5040 and
RFC7306:

The DDP Control Field consists of the T (Tagged), L (Last), Resrv,
and DV (DDP protocol Version) fields RFC 5041. are defined in RFC5041. The
RDMAP Control Field consists of the RV (RDMA Version), Rsv, and
Opcode fields RFC
5040. are defined in RFC5040. No change or extension is made
to these fields by this specification.

This specification adds values for the RDMA Opcode field to those
specified in RFC 5040. RFC5040. Table 1 defines the new values of the RDMA
Opcode field that are used for the RDMA Messages defined in this
specification.

As shown in Table 1, STag (Steering Tag) and Tagged Offset are valid
only for certain RDMA Messages defined in this specification.
Table 1 also shows the appropriate Queue Number for each Opcode.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|T|L| Resrv | DV| RV|R| Opcode |
| | | | | |s| |
| | | | | |v| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalidate STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1:

DDP Control and RDMAP Control Fields

All RDMA Messages defined in this specification MUST carry the
following values:

o The RDMA Version (RV) field: 01b.

o Opcode field: Set to one of the values in Table 1. 2.

o Invalidate STag: Set to zero, or optionally to non-zero by the
sender, processed by the receiver.

Note: N/A in the table below means Not Applicable
-------+-----------+-------+------+-------+-----------+--------------
-------+------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+-------------
RDMA | Message | Tagged| STag | Queue | Invalidate| Message
Opcode | Type | Flag | and | Number| STag | Length
| | | TO | | | Communicated
| | | | | | between DDP
| | | | | | and RDMAP
-------+-----------+-------+------+-------+-----------+--------------
-------+-----------+-------------------------------------------------
-------+------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+-------------
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------
01100b | RDMA Flush | 0 | N/A | 1 | opt | Yes
| Commit Request | | | | |
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------
01101b | Request RDMA Flush | 0 | N/A | 3 | N/A | No
| Response | | |
-------+-----------+-------------------------------------------------
01101b | |
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------
01110b | RDMA Verify| 0 | N/A | 1 | opt | Yes
| Request | | | | |
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------
01111b | RDMA Verify| 0 | N/A | 3 | N/A | Yes
| Commit Response | | | | |
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------
10000b | Atomic | 0 | N/A | 1 | opt | Yes
| Write | | | | |
| Request | | | | |
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------
10001b | Atomic | 0 | N/A | 3 | N/A | No
| Write | | | | |
| Response | | | | |
-------+-----------+-------------------------------------------------

Table 1:
-------+------------+------------------------------------------------

Additional RDMA Usage of DDP Fields

This extension adds RDMAP use of Queue Number 1 for Untagged Buffers
for issuing RDMA Commit Flush, RDMA Verify and Atomic Write Requests, and
use of Queue Number 3 for Untagged Buffers for tracking RDMA Commit the
respective Responses.

All other DDP and RDMAP Control Fields are set as described in RFC
5040
RFC5040 and RFC 7306. RFC7306.

Table 2 3 defines which RDMA Headers are used on each new RDMA Message
and which new RDMA Messages are allowed to carry ULP payload.

-------+-----------+-------------------+-------------------------

Table 2:
-------+------------+---------------------------------------------

RDMA Message Definitions

Further discussion.

3.2.1.

3.1.1. RDMA Flush

The RDMA Commit Flush operation requests that all bytes in a specified
region are to be made persistent and/or globally visible, under
control of specified flags. As specified in section 4 its operation
is ordered after the successful completion of any previous requested
RDMA Write or certain other operations. The response is generated
after the region has reached its specified state. The implementation
MUST fail the operation and send a terminate message if the RDMA
Flush cannot be performed, or has encountered an error.

The RDMA Flush operation MUST NOT be completed by the data sink until
all data has attained the requested state. Achieving persistence may
require programming and/or flushing of device buffers, while
achieving global visibility may require flushing of cached buffers
across the entire platform interconnect. In no event are persistence
and global visibility achieved atomically, one may precede the other
and either may complete at any time.The Atomic Write operation may be
used by an upper layer consumer to indicate that either or both
dispositions are available after completion of the RDMA Flush, in
addition to other approaches.

3.1.1.1. RDMA Flush Request Header Format

The RDMA Commit Flush Request Message makes use of the DDP Untagged Buffer
Model. RDMA Commit Flush Request messages MUST use the same Queue Number as
RDMA Read Requests and RDMA Extensions Atomic Operation Requests
(QN=1). Reusing the same queue number for RMDA Commit RDMA Flush Requests allows
the operations to reuse the same RDMA infrastructure (e.g. Outbound
and Inbound RDMA Read Queue Depth (ORD/IRD) flow control) as that
defined for RDMA Read Requests.

The RDMA Commit Flush Request Message carries an RDMA Commit header a payload that describes the
ULP Buffer address in the Responder's memory. The RDMA
Write Request header immediately follows the DDP header. The RDMAP
layer passes an RDMAP Control Field to the DDP layer. Figure 2 following figure
depicts the RDMA Commit Flush Request Header that is used for all RDMA
Commit Flush Request
Messages:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Tagged Offset |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Flush Disposition Flags +G+P|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: RDMA Commit Request Header

Flush Request Identifier: 32 bits. The Request Identifier specifies a
number that is used to identify the RDMA Commit Request Message.
The value used in this field is selected by the RNIC that sends
the message, and it is reflected back to the Local Peer in the
RDMA Commit Response message. N.B. Is this field really useful
to the RNIC, or does ordering suffice???

Data Sink STag: 32 bits The Data Sink STag identifies the Remote
Peer's Tagged Buffer targeted by the RDMA Commit Flush Request. The Data
Sink STag is associated with the RDMAP Stream through a mechanism
that is outside the scope of the RDMAP specification.

Data Sink Length: The Data Sink Length is the length, in octets, of
the bytes targeted by the RDMA Flush Request.

Data Sink Tagged Offset: 64 bits The Data Sink Tagged Offset
specifies the starting offset, in octets, from the base of the
Remote Peer's Tagged Buffer targeted by the RDMA Commit Flush Request.

... Additional region identifiers to be committed in processing

Flags: Flags specifying the disposition of the flushed data: 0x01
Flush to Persistence, 0x02 Flush to Global Visibility.

3.1.1.2. RDMA Commit Request, and/or upper layer message to be passed to
upper layer after commit completion (TBD).

3.2.2. RDMA Commit Flush Response Header Format

The RDMA Commit Flush Response Message makes use of the DDP Untagged Buffer
Model. RDMA Commit Flush Response messages MUST use the same Queue Number
as RDMA Extensions Atomic Operation Responses (QN=3). The RDMAP
layer passes the following No payload is
passed to the DDP layer on Queue Number 3.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Request Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 3:

Upon successful completion of RDMA Flush processing, an RDMA Commit Flush
Response Header

Original Request Identifier: 32 bits. The Original Request
Identifier is set to MUST be generated.

If during RDMA Flush processing on the value specified Responder, an error is
detected which would result in the Request Identifier
field that was originally provided in requested region to not achieve
the corresponding RDMA
Commit Request Message. N.B. ditto previous question.

Status: 32 bits. Zero if requested disposition, the Responder MUST generate a Terminate
message. The contents of the Terminate message are defined in
Section 5.2.

3.1.1.3. RDMA Commit was successfully processed,
or any other value if not.

3.2.3. Flush Ordering and Atomicity

Ordering and completion rules for RDMA Commit Flush Request are similar to
those for an Atomic operation as described in section 5 of RFC 7306. RFC7306.
The queue number field of the RDMA Commit Flush Request for the DDP layer
MUST be 1, and the RDMA Commit Flush Response for the DDP layer MUST be 3.

There are no ordering requirements for the placement of the data to
be committed, data, nor
are there any requirements for the order in which the data is made durable.
globally visible and/or persistent. Data received by prior
operations (e.g. RDMA Write) MAY be submitted for placement at any
time, and
durability persistence or global visibility MAY occur before the commit flush
is requested. Data committed
after placement After placement, data MAY become durable persistent or
globally visible at any time, in the course of operation of the
persistency management of the storage device, or by other actions
resulting in durability. persistence or global visibility.

Any data region segment specified by the
commit operation, in any case, RDMA Flush operation MUST be made durable
persistent and/or globally visible before successful return of the commit.

3.2.4. Atomicity
operation. If RDMA Flush processing is successful on the Responder,
meaning the requested bytes of the region are, or have been made
persistent and/or globally visible, as requested, the RDMA Flush
Response MUST be generated.

There are no atomicity guarantees provided on the Responder's node by
the RDMA Commit Flush Operation with respect to any other operations. While
the Completion of the RDMA Commit Flush Operation ensures that the requested
data was placed into, and committed to flushed from the target Tagged Buffer,
other operations might have also placed or fetched overlapping data.
The upper layer is responsible for arbitrating any shared access.

(To discuss)

(Sidebar) It would be useful to make a statement about other RDMA
Flush to the target buffer and RDMA Read from the target buffer on
the same connection. Use of QN 1 for these operations provides
ordering possibilities which imply that they will "work" (see #7
below). NOTE: this does not, however, extend to RDMA Write, which is
not queued nor sequenced and therefore does not employ a DDP QN.

3.1.2. RDMA Verify

The commit RDMA Verify operation provides requests that all bytes in a specified
region are to be read from the underlying storage and that an optional
integrity hash be calculated. As specified in section 4 its
operation is ordered after the successful completion of any previous
requested RDMA Write and RDMA Flush, or certain other operations.
The implementation MUST fail the operation and send a terminate
message if the RDMA Verify cannot be performed, has encountered an
error, or if a hash value was provided in the request and the
calculated hash does not match. If no condition for a Terminate
message is encountered, the response is generated containing the
result calculated hash value.

3.1.2.1. RDMA Verify Request Format

The RDMA Verify Request Message makes use of the DDP Untagged Buffer
Model. RDMA Verify Request messages MUST use the same Queue Number
as RDMA Read Requests and RDMA Extensions Atomic Operation Requests
(QN=1). Reusing the same queue number for RDMA Read and RDMA Flush
Requests allows the operations to reuse the same RDMA infrastructure
(e.g. Outbound and Inbound RDMA Read Queue Depth (ORD/IRD) flow
control) as that defined for those requests.

The RDMA Verify Request Message carries a payload that describes the
ULP Buffer address in the Responder's memory. The following figure
depicts the Verify Request that is used for all RDMA Verify Request
Messages:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Tagged Offset |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hash Value (optional, variable) |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Verify Request

Data Sink STag: 32 bits The Data Sink STag identifies the Remote
Peer's Tagged Buffer targeted by the Verify Request. The Data
Sink STag is associated with the RDMAP Stream through a mechanism
that is outside the scope of the RDMAP specification.

Data Sink Length: The Data Sink Length is the length, in octets, of
the bytes targeted by the Verify Request.

Data Sink Tagged Offset: 64 bits The Data Sink Tagged Offset
specifies the starting offset, in octets, from the base of the
Remote Peer's Tagged Buffer targeted by the Verify Request.

Hash Value: The Hash Value is optionally an octet string
representing the expected result, if any, of the hash algorithm on
the Remote Peer's Tagged Buffer. The length of the Hash Value is
variable, and dependent on the selected algorithm. When provided,
any mismatch with the calculated value causes the Responder to
generate a Terminate message, and close the connection. The
contents of the Terminate message are defined in section 5.2.

3.1.2.2. Verify Response Format

The Verify Response Message makes use of the DDP Untagged Buffer
Model. Verify Response messages MUST use the same Queue Number as
RDMA Flush Responses (QN=3). The RDMAP layer passes the following
payload to the DDP layer on Queue Number 3. The RDMA Verify Response
is not sent when a Terminate message is generated through specifying
the Compare Flag as 1, and a mismatch occurs.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hash Value (variable) |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Verify Response

Hash Value: The Hash Value is an octet string representing the
result of the hash algorithm on the Remote Peer's Tagged Buffer.
The length of the Hash Value is variable, and dependent on the
algorithm selected by the upper layer consumer, among those
supported by the RNIC.

3.1.2.3. RDMA Verify Ordering

Ordering and completion rules for RDMA Verify Request are similar to
those for an Atomic operation as described in section 5 of RFC7306.
The queue number field of the RDMA Verify Request for the DDP layer
MUST be 1, and the RDMA Verify Response for the DDP layer MUST be 3.

As specified in section 4, RDMA Verify and RDMA Flush are executed by
the Data Sink in strict order. When an RDMA Verify follows an RDMA
Flush, and because the RDMA Flush MUST ensure that all bytes are in
the specified state before responding, any RDMA Verify that follows
can be assured that it is operating on flushed data. If unflushed
data has been sent to the region segment between the operations, and
since data may be made persistent and/or globally visible by the Data
Sink at any time, the result of any such RDMA Verify is undefined.

3.1.3. Atomic Write

The Atomic Write operation provides a block of data which is committed placed
to a specified region atomically, and as specified in section 4 its
placement is ordered after the successful completion of the any previous
requested commit. RDMA Flush or RDMA Verify. This specified region MAY be is
constrained in size and alignment by the implementation, to 64-bits at 64-bit alignment, and
the implementation MUST fail the operation and send a terminate
message if the subsequent commit placement cannot be performed atomically.

The
implementation MUST NOT perform the subsequent commit if an error
occurred on Atomic Write Operation requires the requested commit, and SHOULD return Responder to write a non-zero status
indicating 64-bit
value at a ULP Buffer address that is 64-bit aligned in the error.

(Sidebar) It would be useful to make
Responder's memory, in a statement about other manner which is Placed in the responder's
memory atomically.

3.1.3.1. Atomic Write Request

The Atomic Write Request Message makes use of the DDP Untagged Buffer
Model. Atomic Write Request messages MUST use the same Queue Number
as RDMA Read Requests and RDMA Extensions Atomic Operation Requests
(QN=1). Reusing the same queue number for RDMA Flush and RDMA
Commit Verify
Requests allows the operations to reuse the target buffer same RDMA infrastructure
(e.g. Outbound and Inbound RDMA Read Queue Depth (ORD/IRD) flow
control) as that defined for those Requests.

The Atomic Write Request Message carries an Atomic Write Request
payload that describes the ULP Buffer address in the Responder's
memory, as well as the data to be written. The following figure
depicts the Atomic Write Request that is used for all Atomic Write
Request Messages:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Tagged Offset |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Atomic Write Request

Data Sink STag: 32 bits The Data Sink STag identifies the Remote
Peer's Tagged Buffer targeted by the Atomic Write Request. The
Data Sink STag is associated with the RDMAP Stream through a
mechanism that is outside the scope of the RDMAP specification.

Data Sink Length: The Data Sink Length is the length of data to be
placed, and MUST be 8.

Data Sink Tagged Offset: 64 bits The Data Sink Tagged Offset
specifies the starting offset, in octets, from the target base of the
Remote Peer's Tagged Buffer targeted by the Atomic Write Request.
This offset can be any value, but the destination ULP buffer on
address MUST be aligned as specified above. Ensuring that the same connection. Use
STag and Data Sink Tagged Offset values appropriately meet such a
requirement is an upper layer consumer responsibility, and is out
of QN 1 scope for these operations provides
ordering guarantees which imply that they will "work" (see #7 below).
NOTE: this does not, however, extend specification.

Data: The 64-bit data value to be written, in big-endian format.

Atomic Write Operations MUST target ULP Buffer addresses that are
64-bit aligned, and conform to any other platform restrictions on the
Responder system. The write MUST NOT be Placed prior to all prior
RDMA Write, which Flush operations, and therefore all other prior operations,
completing successfully.

If an Atomic Write Operation is not
sequenced nor does it employ attempted on a target ULP Buffer
address that is not 64-bit aligned, or due to alignment, size, or
other platform restrictions cannot be performed atomically:

The operation MUST NOT be performed

The Responder's memory MUST NOT be modified

A terminate message MUST be generated. (See Section 5.2 for the
contents of the terminate message.)

3.1.3.2. Atomic Write Response

The Atomic Write Response Message makes use of the DDP QN.

3.2.5. Untagged
Buffer Model. Atomic Write Response Response messages MUST use the
same Queue Number as RDMA Flush Responses (QN=3). The RDMAP layer
passes no payload to the DDP layer on Queue Number 3.

3.1.4. Discovery of RDMAP Extensions

As for RFC 7306, RFC7306, explicit negotiation by the RDMAP peers of the
extensions covered by this document is not required. Instead, it is
RECOMMENDED that RDMA applications and/or ULPs negotiate any use of
these extensions at the application or ULP level. The definition of
such application-specific mechanisms is outside the scope of this
specification. For backward compatibility, existing applications
and/or ULPs should not assume that these extensions are supported.

In the absence of application-specific negotiation of the features
defined within this specification, the new operations can be
attempted, and reported errors can be used to determine a remote
peer's capabilities. In the case of RDMA Commit, Flush and Atomic Write, an
operation to a previously Advertised buffer with remote write
permission can be used to determine the peer's support. A Remote
Operation Error or Unexpected OpCode error will be reported by the
remote peer if the Operation is not supported by the remote peer.
For RDMA Verify, such an operation may target a buffer with remote
read permission.

3.2. Local Extensions

This section discusses memory registration, new memory and protection
attributes, and applicability to both remote and "local" (receives).
Because this section does not specify any wire-visible semantic, it
is entirely informative.

3.2.1. Registration Semantics

New platform-specific attributes to RDMA registration, allows them to
be processed at the server *only* without client knowledge, or
protocol exposure. No client knowledge - robust design ensuring
future interop

New local PMEM memory registration example:

Region describes the memory segment[s] to be registered by the
returned STag. The local RNIC may limit the size and number of
these segments.

MemPerm to indicate permitted operations in addition to remote
read and remote werite: "remote flush to persistence", "remote
flush to global visibility", selectivity, etc.

MemType includes type of storage described by the Region, i.e.
plain RAM, "flush required" (flushable), or PCIe-resident via
peer-to-peer, or any other local platform-specific processing

MemMode includes disposition of data Read and/or written e.g.
Cacheable after operation (indicate if needed by CPU on data
sink, to allow or avoid writethrough as optimization)

None of the above attributes are at all relevant, or exposed,
by the protocol

STag is processed in receiving RNIC during RDMA operation to
specified region, under control of original Perm, Type and Mode.

3.2.2. Completion Semantics

Discuss the interactions with new operations when upper layer
provides Completions to responder (e.g. messages via receive or
immediate data via RDMA Write). Natural conclusion of ordering
rules, but made explicit.

Ordering of operations is critical: Such RDMA Writes cannot be
allowed to "pass" persistence or global visibility, and RDMA Flush
may not begin until prior RDMA Writes to flush region are accounted
for. Therefore, ULP protocol implications may also exist.

3.2.3. Platform Semantics

Writethrough behavior on persistent regions and reasons for same.
Consider recommending a local writethrough behavior on any persistent
region, to support a nonblocking hurry-up to avoid future stalls on a
subsequent cache flush, prior to a flush. Also, it would enhance
storage integrity. Drive selection of this behavior from memory
registration, so RNIC may "look up" the desired behavior in its TPT.

PCI extension to support Flush would allow RNIC to provide
persistence and/or global visibility directly and efficiently To
Memory, CPU, PCI Root, PM device, PCIe device, ... Avoids CPU
interaction Supports strong data consistency model. Performs
equivalent of: CLFLUSHOPT (region list) or some other flow tag. Or
if RNIC participates in platform consistency domain on memory bus or
within CPU complex... other possibilities exist!

Also consider additional "integrity check" behavior (hash algorithm)
specified per-region. If so, providing it as a registration
parameter enables fine-graned control, and enables storing it in per-
region RNIC state, making its processing optional and
straightforward.

A similar approach applicable to providing security key for
encrypting/decrypting access on per-region basius, without protocol
exposure. [SDC2017 presentation]

Any other per-region processing to be explored.

4. Ordering and Completions Table

Table 3 summarizes

The table in this section specifies the ordering relationships for
the RDMA Commit
operation operations in this specification and in those it extends, from
the standpoint of the Requester. Note that in the table, Send
Operation includes Send, Send with Invalidate, Send with Solicited
Event, and Send with Solicited Event and Invalidate. Also note that
Immediate Operation includes Immediate Data and Immediate Data with
Solicited Event.

As for the prior section, the text below presents one possible
approach, and is included in skeletal form to be filled-in when
appropriate.

Table 3:

Ordering of Operations

5. Error Processing

In addition to error processing described in section 7 of RFC 5040 RFC5040 and
section 8 of RFC 7306, RFC7306, the following rules apply for the new RDMA
Messages defined in this specification.

5.1. Errors Detected at the Local Peer

The Local Peer MUST send a Terminate Message for each of the
following cases:

1. For errors detected while creating a an RDMA Commit Request Flush, RDMA Verify or
Atomic Write Request, or other reasons not directly associated
with an incoming Message, the Terminate Message and Error code
are sent instead of the Message. In this case, the Error Type
and Error Code fields are included in the Terminate Message, but
the Terminated DDP Header and Terminated RDMA Header fields are
set to zero.

2. For errors detected on an incoming RDMA Commit Flush, RDMA Verify or
Atomic Write Request or RDMA
Commit Response, the Terminate Message is sent
at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably in the next
outgoing RDMA Message. In this case, the Error Type, Error Code,
and Terminated DDP Header fields are included in the Terminate
Message, but the Terminated RDMA Header field is set to zero.

3. For errors detected in the processing of the RDMA Commit Flush or RDMA
Verify itself, that is, the act of making flushing or verifying the
data, the data durable, no Terminate Message is generated. Because generated as per the referenced
specifications. Even though data is not lost, the connection upper layer
MUST
NOT terminate and be notified of the peer MUST inform failure by informing the requester of the
status, terminating any queued operations, and allow the
requester to perform further action, for instance, recovery.

5.2. Errors Detected at the Remote Peer

On incoming RDMA Commit Flush and RDMA Verify Requests, the following MUST
be validated:

o The DDP layer MUST validate all DDP Segment fields.

The following additional validation MUST be performed:

o If the RDMA Commit Flush, RDMA Verify or Atomic Write operation cannot be
satisfied, due to transient or permanent errors detected in the
processing by the Responder, a
status Terminate message MUST be returned
to the Requestor. Valid status values are
to be specified.

6. IANA Considerations

This document requests that IANA assign the following new operation
codes in the "RDMAP Message Operation Codes" registry defined in
section 3.4 of [RFC6580].

0xC RDMA Commit Flush Request, this specification

0xD RDMA Commit Flush Response, this specification

Additionally, the name of the listed entry in "RDMAP DDP Untagged
Queue Numbers" as defined in section 10.2 of [RFC7306] is requested
to be updated as follows:

0x00000003 Queue 3 Modify name to "Atomic Response and

0xE RDMA Commit
Response operations" and add reference to Verify Request, this specification

0xF RDMA Verify Response, this specification

0x10 Atomic Write Request, this specification

0x11 Atomic Write Response, this specification

Note to RFC Editor: this section may be edited and updated prior to
publication as an RFC.

7. Security Considerations

This document specifies extensions to the RDMA Protocol specification
in RFC 5040 RFC5040 and RDMA Protocol Extensions in RFC 7306, RFC7306, and as such the
Security Considerations discussed in Section 8 of RFC 5040 RFC5040 and
Section 9 of RFC 7306 RFC7306 apply. In particular, RDMA Commit Operations all operations use ULP
Buffer addresses for the Remote Peer Buffer addressing used in RFC 5040
RFC5040 as required by the security model described in [RDMAP
Security [RFC5042]].

If the "push mode" transfer model discussed in section 2 is
implemented by upper layers, new security considerations will be
potentially introduced in those protocols, particularly on the
server, or target, if the new memory regions are not carefully
protected. Therefore, for them to take full advantage of the
extension defined in this document, additional security design is
required in the implementation of those upper layers. The facilities
of RFC5042 [RFC5042] can provide the basis for any such design.

In addition to protection, in "push mode" the server or target will
expose memory resources to the peer for potentially extended periods,
and will allow the peer to perform remote durability requests which will
necessarily consume shared resources, e.g. memory bandwidth, power,
and memory itself. It is recommended that the upper layers provide a
means to gracefully adjust such resources, for example using upper
layer callbacks, without resorting to revoking RDMA permissions,
which would summarily close connections. With the initiator
applications relying on the protocol extension itself for managing
their required durability, persistence and/or global visibility, the lack of such
an approach would lead to frequent recovery in low-resource
situations, potentially opening a new threat to such applications.

8. To Be Added or Considered

This section will be deleted in a future document revision.

Complete the discussion in section 3.2 and its subsections, Local
Extension semantics.

Complete the Ordering table in section 4. Carefully include
discussion of the order of "start of execution" as well as
completion, which are somewhat more involved than prior RDMA
operation ordering.

RDMA Flush "selectivity", to provide default flush semantics with
broader scope than region-based. If specified, a flag to request
that all prior write operations on the issuing Queue Pair be flushed
with the requested disposition(s). This flag may simplify upper
layer processing, and would allow regions larger than 4GB-1 byte to
be flushed in a single operation. The STag, Offset and Length will
be ignored in this case. It is to-be-determined how to extend the
RDMA security model to protect other regions associated with this
Queue Pair from unintentional or unauthorized flush.

9. Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Jim Pinkerton, who contributed to an
earlier version of the specification, and Brian Hausauer and Kobby
Carmona, who have provided significant review and valuable comments.

10. References

8.1.

10.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
Specification", RFC 5040, DOI 10.17487/RFC5040, October
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>.

[RFC5041] Shah, H., Pinkerton, J., Recio, R., and P. Culley, "Direct
Data Placement over Reliable Transports", RFC 5041,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5041, October 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5041>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5041>.

[RFC5042] Pinkerton, J. and E. Deleganes, "Direct Data Placement
Protocol (DDP) / Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
(RDMAP) Security", RFC 5042, DOI 10.17487/RFC5042, October
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5042>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5042>.

[RFC6580] Ko, M. and D. Black, "IANA Registries for the Remote
Direct Data Placement (RDDP) Protocols", RFC 6580,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6580, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6580>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6580>.

[RFC7306] Shah, H., Marti, F., Noureddine, W., Eiriksson, A., and R.
Sharp, "Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Protocol
Extensions", RFC 7306, DOI 10.17487/RFC7306, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7306>.

8.2.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7306>.

10.2. Informative References

[RFC5045] Bestler, C., Ed. and L. Coene, "Applicability of Remote
Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and Direct Data
Placement (DDP)", RFC 5045, DOI 10.17487/RFC5045, October
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5045>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5045>.

[RFC5661] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed.,
"Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1
Protocol", RFC 5661, DOI 10.17487/RFC5661, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5661>.

[RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access
Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>.

[RFC5667] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Network File System (NFS)
Direct Data Placement", RFC 5667, DOI 10.17487/RFC5667,
January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5667>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5661>.

[RFC7145] Ko, M. and A. Nezhinsky, "Internet Small Computer System
Interface (iSCSI) Extensions for the Remote Direct Memory
Access (RDMA) Specification", RFC 7145,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7145, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7145>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7145>.

[RFC8166] Lever, C., Ed., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call Version
1", RFC 8166, DOI 10.17487/RFC8166, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8166>.

[RFC8267] Lever, C., "Network File System (NFS) Upper-Layer Binding
to RPC-over-RDMA Version 1", RFC 8267,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8267, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8267>.

[SCSI] American National Standards Institute, ANSI, "SCSI Primary Commands - 3 (SPC-3) (INCITS
408-2005)", May 2005.

[SMB3] Microsoft Corporation, "Server Message Block (SMB)
Protocol Versions 2 and 3 (MS-SMB2)", October 2015. March 2020.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-smb2/5606ad47-5ee0-437a-
817e-70c366052962

[SMBDirect]
Microsoft Corporation, "SMB2 Remote Direct Memory Access
(RDMA) Transport Protocol (MS-SMBD)", October 2015.

[SNIANVM] Storage Networking Industry Association September 2018.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-smbd/1ca5f4ae-e5b1-493d-
b87d-f4464325e6e3

[SNIANVMP]
SNIA NVM Programming TWG, "SNIA NVM Programming Model v1.0", 2014.

8.3.
v1.2", June 2017.

https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/technical_work/
final/NVMProgrammingModel_v1.2.pdf

10.3. URIs

[1] http://www.nvmexpress.org

[2] http://www.jedec.org

Appendix A. DDP Segment Formats for RDMA Extensions

This appendix is for information only and is NOT part of the
standard. It simply depicts the DDP Segment format for each of the
RDMA Messages defined in this specification.

A.1. DDP Segment for RDMA Commit Flush Request

Figure

0 1 2 3 depicts an
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP Control | RDMA Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Not Used) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (Flush Request) Queue Number (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (Flush Request) Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Tagged Offset |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Disposition Flags +G+P|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

RDMA Commit Flush Request, DDP Segment: Segment

A.2. DDP Segment for RDMA Flush Response
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP Control | RDMA Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Not Used) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (RDMA Commit Request) (Flush Response) Queue Number (3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (RDMA Commit Request) (Flush Response) Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|

RDMA Flush Response, DDP Segment

A.3. DDP Segment for RDMA Verify Request Identifier

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP Control | RDMA Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Not Used) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (Verify Request) Queue Number (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (Verify Request) Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Sink Tagged Offset |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hash Value (optional, variable) |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 3

A.2.

RDMA Verify Request, DDP Segment

A.4. DDP Segment for RDMA Commit Verify Response

Figure
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 depicts an 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP Control | RDMA Commit Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Not Used) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (Verify Response) Queue Number (3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (Verify Response) Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hash Value (variable) |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

RDMA Verify Response, DDP Segment: Segment

A.5. DDP Segment for Atomic Write Request

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP Control | RDMA Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Not Used) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (RDMA Commit Response) (Atomic Write Request) Queue Number (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP (RDMA Commit Response) (Atomic Write Request) Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Request Identifier Data Sink STag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status Data Sink Length (value=8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure
| Data Sink Tagged Offset |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data (64 bits) |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Atomic Write Request, DDP Segment

A.6. DDP Segment for Atomic Write Response

Atomic Write Response, DDP Segment

Authors' Addresses

Tom Talpey
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US

Email: ttalpey@microsoft.com

Jim Pinkerton
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

Tony Hurson
Intel
Austin, TX
US

Email: tony.hurson@intel.com

Gaurav Agarwal
Marvell
CA
US

Email: gagarwal@marvell.com
Tom Reu
Chelsio
NJ
US

Email: jpink@microsoft.com tomreu@chelsio.com