***SPAM*** Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com> wrote:
> 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.

Would you try perfquery -e for the different devices that you want the
counters ?

-- Hal

> 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
>>
>