On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:54:18 -0700 Alex Netes <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Correct. > I'm not sure though, how calling to osm_perfmgr_bind() affects performance. I don't think it should 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. Subsequent patch on it's way. Ira > > > -- Alex -- Ira Weiny Math Programmer/Computer Scientist Lawrence Livermore National Lab 925-423-8008 [email protected] -- 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
