Hi Ira, On 10:13 Fri 08 Jul , Ira Weiny wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:23:50 -0700 > Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> 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. I'm not sure though, how calling to osm_perfmgr_bind() 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. -- Alex -- 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
