[ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
Moshe-ha at orbotech.com
Mon Feb 23 23:08:50 PST 2009
On the Linux system I cleared the counters and used perfquery to see
that they are 0.
Then I ran a program I wrote that transfers 1GB of data.
When I ran perfquery again, I then calculated 1GB / received counter and
got to a relation of around 100MB for each increase in the counter.
Doing the equivalent in Windows indeed brought me to the 4 bytes
increase (as I assumed it would be).
From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenstock at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:14 PM
To: Moshe Haim
Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com>
> The result of running perfquery -e:
> ibwarn:  main: PerfMgt ClassPortInfo 0x0 extended counters not
> perfquery: iberror: failed: perfextquery
Yes, the extended 64 bit counters are not supported on that device type
No clue as to the data counter anomaly you mentioned: "increments are
around 1MB - so if my counter shows 0x64 it means ~100MB of data were
transferred." The low level counter is bytes * 4. Is this that counter
or some other aggregated counter in software ? Is some performance
manager running ? Are these counters being reset ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenstock at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: Moshe Haim
> Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
> Subject: Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com>
>> I am using CentOS-5 with kernel 2.6.18-8.el5.
>> Using ofed_info the OFED version is: OFED-18.104.22.168
>> 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
>> -----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>
>>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> the counters count in (4x)bytes? Since most chances they will fill
>>> very fast (as seen)
>>> -----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
>>>>and I was told that on Linux there was a problem with perfquery
>>>>was neither thread nor process safe - i.e. calling it concurrently
>>>>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"
>>>>mentioned below in order to get the performance counter information
>>> perfquery sends MADs that query the performance counters. The
>>> returned in a MAD. The MAD format and behavior is defined by the IB
>>>>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
>>> any of
>>> MAD libraries.
>>> - Sean
>>> ofw mailing list
>>> ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
More information about the ofw