On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:45, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > On 15:36 Thu 14 Jun , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: > > Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > > > Hi Yevgeny, > > > On 11:19 Thu 14 Jun , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: > > >> The following three patches are adding root and compute node guid files > > >> options for fat-tree routing, > > > Is there any reason to not share root guids file option with up/down? > > > > There are two new options for fat-tree: roots and compute nodes (CN). > > These two will be very "tightly coupled" and would have more implication > > on the routing than in case of up/dn roots. For instance, having root > > file but not CN file means that the topology doesn't have to be pure > > fat-tree, > > but all the CAs are considered CNs and have to be on the same level of the > > tree. > > And there is similar implication of all the combinations of these two > > options. > > > > Because of this coupling I wanted to differentiate these two options from > > the up/dn roots. > > > > Thoughts? > > I still not have strong option about two options against common one.
Me neither. > Hypothetically if in some days we will implement routing engine chains > (so failed algo will fallback to next in chain and not just to default) > separate options could be useful. So is this a(nother) reason to keep the roots separate or would that be dealt with when the routing fallback strategy changes ? -- Hal > > > Also the way how root guids are handled (in both up/down and ftree) > > > doesn't look very optimal - guids are loaded to dynamic list, the list > > > is converted to map, this map is matched and root nodes are marked as > > > roots. Isn't it would be easy just to mark root nodes during file parsing? > > > > The only thing you can save here is converting list to map: > > I don't think the root guids map is needed - you can just set is_root > field for sw nodes by guid(s) specified in the file, since you already > have sw by guid map. > > > You have to parse the guids file anyway, and you have to build all the > > fat-tree data structures anyway. So if you parse the file and fill the > > map right away instead of filling the list first, you will save the > > list2map > > conversion. > > But then up/dn and fat-tree can't use the same function to parse the guid > > file, > > and since the list2map conversion is not a big deal (we're talking about > > list > > of roots, which is couple of hundreds of guids at max), I prefer to leave > > it > > and not to use separate parsing functions for up/dn and fat-tree. > > You can pass custom callback to common parser. > > > BTW, since we're on this subject, how about removing the list2array > > conversion > > in the same place in up/dn routing? > > Sure, similar junk should be cleaned up in up/down too (and my original > complain was about both root guids users). > > Sasha _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
