Re: [PATCH] opensm: enable perfmgr build by default

Ira Weiny
2011-07-13T01:03:24Z

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:54:18 -0700
Alex Netes <alexne-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Hi Ira,
>
> On 10:13 Fri 08 Jul , Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:23:50 -0700
> > Hal Rosenstock <hal-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> 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