Hi again Al, On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Al Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
So it seems that the reason for adding an additional option for this is that the lack of this support ? Are there any other uses ? -- Hal >> >> >> > 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
