Hey Hal, On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 09:44 -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Al Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Hal, > > > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 07:03 -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> Al, > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Al Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Hey Sasha, > >> > > >> > We have a switch here that does not report the AllPortSelect flag as a > >> > capability. It's pretty annoying typing each port on the switch or > >> > always having to script around this one oddball switch we have. So I > >> > added an option --loop_ports for perfquery. If you want to do something > >> > to all the ports on the CA/Switch, but AllPortSelect isn't available, it > >> > loops through all the available ports instead. > >> > >> Why not add simulated AllPortSelect for multiple ports rather than add > >> another perquery option for this ? > > > > I did try that, and it did seem to work for the switches we had. But > > when I read the IB spec, it said something to the affect that if a > > system doesn't support AllPortSelect, setting the PortSelect field to > > 0xFF was undefined behavior. > > I was suggesting that the emulation support (when AllPortSelect is not > supported) be enhanced for multiple ports and work on both CAs and all > switches. The one difference is one response for AllPortSelect > (whether emulated or not) v. many responses for port loop.
Oh. I thought you were referring the the workaround "simulation" that was in the original code. But you're referring to aggregating the data/output make it look like AllPortSelect was supported. I'll put this on the TODO. > > >> > There was already a workaround in the tool for a CA that did not support > >> > the AllPortSelect flag. I get the feeling the workaround may have been > >> > for a specific hardware, so I kept the workaround in there. > >> > >> > Al > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Albert Chu > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Computer Scientist > >> > High Performance Systems Division > >> > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > >> There are also 2 for loops which are not correct for some switches: > >> for (i = 1; i <= num_ports; i++) > > > > I guess I've never seen a switch that doesn't go from 1 to num_ports. > > Is there something else I need to handle? > > Yes, per the spec, enhanced SP0 supports PortCounters. All your > switches likely support AllPortSelect so it's not an issue there. Ok I see now. Wasn't aware of it. I'll get a patch together. Thanks, Al > -- Hal > > > Al > > > >> -- Hal > >> > > -- > > Albert Chu > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Computer Scientist > > High Performance Systems Division > > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > > > > > -- Albert Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Scientist High Performance Systems Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory _______________________________________________ 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
