[openib-general] tavor quirks etc (opensm compliance etc)
Hal Rosenstock
halr at voltaire.com
Tue Dec 26 09:28:26 PST 2006
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 13:39, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > Hi Eitan,
> >
> > On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 07:35, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Or,
> >>
> >> Sorry it took me a while.
> >>
> >> According to the IBTA spec:
> >> 1. In order for MTU and MTUSelector to have any effect their component
> >> mask bits MUST be set to 1 in the query
> >> 2. Behavior of the SM is defined with small "freedom" to choose between
> >> multiple matching MTU values if they exist.
> >>
> >
> > I agree in general but would like to be sure about the details. Please
> > be specific as to what IBA spec text you are referring to.
> >
> The text is part of the PathRecord table.
Are you referring to the description of XXXSelector ?
> >> 3. The table below summarizes all options:
> >>
> >> Assuming the value M represents the lowest MTU on the path
> >>
> >
> > Is M the lowest available MTU or the highest available MTU for that path
> > ?
> >
> M is the lowest MTU reported by all PortInfo for ports on the path.
^^^
NeighborMTU
We are saying the same thing in different ways.
-- Hal
> >
> >> We denote by M-1 the MTU value one level below M (e.g. 1K if M=2K)
> >> R represents the MTU value in the request. Similarly R-1 is one below R
> >> and R+1 is one above R.
> >>
> >> Query-MTU | Query-Sel | Resp by Spec | OpenSM Should | OpenSM Quirk
> >> w. Tavor End Port
> >> --
> >> UNDEFINED | UNDEFINED | <= M | M | min(M,1K)
> >> R | < | <= min(R-1, M) | min(R-1, M) | min(R-1, M, 1K)
> >> R | = | R if M>=R /ERR | R if M>=R /ERR | R if M>=R /ERR
> >> R | > | R < <= M | R+1 if M>R /ERR| R+1 if M>R /ERR
> >>
> > ^^^^^^^^
> > For the R> spec response column, I think you are saying the same as:
> > >R AND <=M if M>R /ERR
> > or
> > R < x <=M if M>R /ERR
> > where x is resp value
> >
> Yes that is what I mean: the response value MUST be both bigger then R
> and equal or less to M. Otherwise an error.
> > I agree with this table given the redefinition of M above and R > spec
> > response interpretation.
> >
> Good.
> > -- Hal
> >
> >
> >> I have built some test code for making sure OpenSM does what is required.
> >> Apparently it does not. In any case the M is not identical to R it fails
> >> the request.
> >>
> >> I am working on fixing OpenSM.
> >>
> >> Any comments are welcome.
> >>
> >> EZ
> >>
> >> Or Gerlitz wrote:
> >>
> >>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I am not yet sure what is best for upstream, so I don't really think we need
> >>>> any RFCs.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We'll need data from SM guys on whether MTU selector actually works
> >>>> in SMs, and if not what happens when you enable it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Eitan,
> >>>
> >>> Can you please post here the tavor-quirk patch which was integrated into
> >>> opensm? i can see the ***code*** of the opensm but might make some wrong
> >>> assumptions or get into wrong understandings as i am not able to see the
> >>> patch as is.
> >>>
> >>> Or.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> openib-general mailing list
> >>> openib-general at openib.org
> >>> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> >>>
> >>> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openib-general mailing list
> > openib-general at openib.org
> > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> >
> > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> >
More information about the general
mailing list