[ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF

[Moshe Haim]

I am using CentOS-5 with kernel 2.6.18-8.el5.
Using ofed_info the OFED version is: OFED-1.2.5.5

>From what I understood in previous E-Mails 64-bit counters are not
supported by the fw. And when I run perfquery I see that the counters
are 32-bit long.

Thanks,
Moshe.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenstock at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:31 PM
To: Moshe Haim
Cc: Sean Hefty; ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com>
wrote:
> So it seems that with the new libraries I will be able to access the
> information directly (through API) - which will be easier for me.
>
> However, the issue of the counters filling up so fast remains as is.

Are the extended (64 bit) counters supported ? If so, those won't fill
up so quickly.

> I have made a few additional checks and updated my firmware. The
> counters on windows are counted in 4 bytes increments. I.e if my
counter
> shows 0x64 then it means that 100*4 (400) bytes were transferred.

The data counters are spec'd in bytes*4.

> However, when I checked the Linux system using perfquery I am getting
a
> totally different ratio.
> It appears that the counters there are still 32-bit wide, but the
> increments are around 1MB - so if my counter shows 0x64 it means
~100MB
> of data were transferred.

Are you sure ? What Linux version is being used ?

-- Hal

> Can someone please tell me:
> 1. Where does this difference come from?
> 2. Since we are talking about 10Gbit (and more) transfer rates, why do
> the counters count in (4x)bytes? Since most chances they will fill up
> very fast (as seen)
>
> Thanks,
> Moshe.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:sean.hefty at intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:33 PM
> To: Moshe Haim; ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
> Subject: RE: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
>
>>I further discussed it with my manager who worked with the Linux
> version
>>and I was told that on Linux there was a problem with perfquery since
> it
>>was neither thread nor process safe - i.e. calling it concurrently
from
>>2 or more threads/processes would crash.
>>In addition, I can only assume perfquery is an executable.
>
> perfquery is an executable.  I'm not sure what's meant about being
> thread or
> process safe, since it's a stand alone program.
>
>>I also assume that perfquery uses one of the more "lower levels" dlls
>>mentioned below in order to get the performance counter information
>>(libibumad?).
>
> perfquery sends MADs that query the performance counters.  The
counters
> are
> returned in a MAD.  The MAD format and behavior is defined by the IB
> spec.
>
>>To be more concrete, if I'd want to directly access the counter
>>information I'll simply need to link my project against that DLL and
>>call an API method - is that assumption correct?
>
> You can send and process your own MADs.  In this case, you can write
to
> any of
> MAD libraries.
>
> - Sean
>
> _______________________________________________
> ofw mailing list
> ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
>