***SPAM*** Re: [ofa-general] ***SPAM*** Re: [PATCHv2] opensm/PerfMgr: Better redirection support
sashak at voltaire.com
Fri Apr 17 07:57:17 PDT 2009
On 09:34 Thu 16 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > Yes, and you can use lid value as such flag - just simpler.
> When GID redirection is specified by client, LID must be 0 so I don't see this.
1. GID redirection is not implemented in this patch.
2. In any case you will need to resolve LID value (using GID) in order
to send MAD.
So LID = 0 can be used as invalid redirection data flag. But this was
a minor comment.
> > My point was different - to separate redirection related data from main
> > flow.
> I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Encapsulate the redirection
> data better so it is obtained by some potentially common routine ?
Yes. And also to not use "fake" redirection fields (specifically pkey_ix)
in non-redirected flow - this is why I think you need 'port' structure.
> >> > PerfMgr is always running over discovered fabric so maybe local port
> >> > number should be detected later at start of PerfMgr process cycle just
> >> > using OpenSM DB.
> >> Why is that better than doing this at bind time of PerfMgr ?
> > At least two reasons: faster and less code.
> Are you sure the OpenSM DB accesses will be faster than the vendor calls here ?
Yes, it is direct memory read against opening and parsing many files
(+ memory allocations, etc.).
> Is bind performance sensitive anyhow ?
Not at all, but all what you need here is just local port number - and 40
(or so) lines of the code (which is 80% duplicated with pkey validation)
for doing this looks like overkill for me (not in sense of performance).
> The performance comment is
> clearly relevant to the main flow though.
Sure, but there you just need to read a value.
> >> > Also what about letting "chance" for port to refresh redirection info?
> >> What do you mean ?
> > When port has invalid redirection data, should you care about attempting
> > to refresh this?
> If the PMA gives bad redirection data (which BTW is noncompliant), it
> seems likely to do this again so I'm not sure about the value of this.
> Do you think that's a better thing to do ?
I don't have a clear opinion (and so asked). Actually if I understood
your code correctly this means that if some port once gets bad
redirection data it will dropped from PerfMgr cycle forever, right?
> >> Redirection does not occur frequently.
> > How could we know:)
> It's the current use case for PerfMgt.
Let's suppose it happens just three times per one PerfMgr cycle -
3 > 1 anyway.
Another important advantage is that in case when pkey tables are
prepared *before* actual PerfMgr cycle and will not slow down querying
Another thought - could p_physp->pkeys be used for index
> > When OpenSM is in master mode it cannot change (PerfMgr is synchronized
> > with heavy sweep).
> > It is possible with standby OpenSM, so what - this single request will
> > fail once.
> Some recovery for such failure would be needed.
Not really - next PerfMgr cycle will fetch valid data.
> Also, what about not active ?
Same as standby (let's call it "non-master" modes).
> >> > All above are not OpenSM errors, but wrong external data. I think it
> >> > should be logged as VERBOSE messages.
> >> I agree it's wrong external data but it seems serious enough to me to
> >> treat as an error.
> > And some stupid port will be able to put OpenSM in endless error
> > printing. I don't think it is a good idea.
> It would be a non compliant PMA which I would think we'd want to know
> about sooner rather than later.
If an admin want to care about this (and also about other such sort of
things) he/she will turn verbosity "on".
> >> Seems like some sort of configuration error to me if this is disabled
> >> at the manager but the PMA wants to use it.
> > PMA shouldn't dictate here.
> PMA does dictate redirection. Manager has no way to shut it off.
But it should be able to ignore this (including "noisy" logging).
> manager turns off it's handling of redirection, then it just doesn't
> work (that port is inaccessible by the manager). This argues for the
> default to be enabled. The current default is disabled since this code
> was deemed experimental.
Right, and it should be consistent with this (now default) setting.
> >> > BTW, why to bother with verifying redirection info when redirection
> >> > support is disabled anyway?
> >> I thought it was useful to know the redirection info was invalid
> >> rather than getting the disabled notification and then enabling and
> >> finding out.
> > For PMAs debug purposes redirection support should be switched "on"
> > obviously.
> Why do you say debug purposes ? Isn't it any purpose ?
I meant PMA support + PMA debug.
More information about the general