On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 08:04:31PM +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> .....
> I still not understand what is wrong with running OpenSM with sweep
> disabled and restarting when a fabric is ready. But anyway a new
> console command looks less aggressive for me than signaling... :)
I think that they found that restarting opensm disrupted running jobs
much more than just pausing/resuming normal sweeping. By pausing/resuming,
they were able to grow the cluster without interrupting the jobs which
were running on the old portion of the cluster.
> .....
> The questions about patch is below.
>
> > .....
> > /* do a sweep if we received a trap */
> > if (sm->p_subn->opt.sweep_on_trap) {
>
> > - /* if this is trap number 128 or run_heavy_sweep is TRUE -
> > - update the force_heavy_sweep flag of the subnet.
> > - Sweep also on traps 144 - these traps signal a change of
> > - certain port capabilities.
> > - TODO: In the future this can be changed to just getting
> > - PortInfo on this port instead of sweeping the entire subnet.
> > */
> > - if (ib_notice_is_generic(p_ntci) &&
> > - (cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num) == 128 ||
> > - cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num) == 144 ||
> > - run_heavy_sweep)) {
> > - OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_VERBOSE,
> > - "Forcing heavy sweep. Received trap:%u\n",
> > + if (!sm->p_subn->sweeping_enabled) {
> > + OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG,
> > + "sweeping disabled - ignoring trap %u\n",
> > cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num));
>
> Isn't this case already handled in osm_state_mgr_process() and this code
> addition in osm_trap_rcv.c redundant?
It is redundant. The only reason for it is to log the additional message
about the ignored trap, instead of the less specific "sweeping disabled -
ignoring signal ...." message.
--
Arthur
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
