From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ira Weiny Subject: Re: [PATCH] opensm: enable perfmgr build by default Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:03:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20110712180324.4257f9ac.weiny2@llnl.gov> References: <20110706151116.79c187ea.weiny2@llnl.gov> <20110708104927.GC7420@calypso.voltaire.com> <20110708090658.f15b95b0.weiny2@llnl.gov> <4E172F16.1000708@dev.mellanox.co.il> <20110708101313.60512582.weiny2@llnl.gov> <20110710085418.GA8520@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110710085418.GA8520-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alex Netes Cc: Hal Rosenstock , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:54:18 -0700 Alex Netes wrote: > Hi Ira, > > On 10:13 Fri 08 Jul , Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:23:50 -0700 > > Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > > > Ira, > > > > > > On 7/8/2011 12:06 PM, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > > However, when we first put the PerfMgr in OpenSM there was some concern for developers who may be using OpenSM in an embedded environment. > > > > > > Do you recall the specific concerns ? I forget and would rather not dig > > > them out unless really necessary... > > > > If I recall there was no "specific" concern just that someone _may_ do this. > > > > Also I think there was some concern about the PerfMgr taking too much processing time with it's threads. But I think that is configurable by the number of SMP's on the wire and turning it off if one prefers a different model. > > > > PerfMgr adds ~200K to opensm binary (34K when stripped). > During runtime PerfMgr adds ~270K to opensm memory allocation, when running > with PerfMgr disabled. > > During the opensm initialization, osm_perfmgr_init() and osm_perfmgr_bind() > are called even if PerfMgr is disabled. I guess it's needed, if we want to > enable PerfMgr later on the fly. Correct. > I'm not sure though, how calling to osm_perfmgr_bind() affects performance. I don't think it should affects performance. > > One more thing, perfmgr_sweep() is called each (pm->sweep_time_s * 1000) no > matter if PerfMgr is enabled or disabled. Though it does nothing, I think it's > better to execute perfmgr_sweep() only when PerfMgr is enabled. Subsequent patch on it's way. Ira > > > -- Alex -- Ira Weiny Math Programmer/Computer Scientist Lawrence Livermore National Lab 925-423-8008 weiny2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html