A couple of questions below:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Itamar wrote:
in order to enable kdapltest -T P i needed to remark attr that are
not set by openib gen2
1) ia_attr.max_evd_qlen
2) ia_attr.max_rdma_read_per_ep_in
3) ia_attr.max_rdma_read_per_ep_out
also there was bug in kdapltest memory registration (file dapl_bpool.c)
and there was bug where we free memory and then we try to print part of the
memory
i can run now kdapltest -T P for both RR and RW
enable kdapltest -T P
fix bug in memory registration
Signed-off-by: Itamar Rabenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: test/dapl_performance_util.c
===================================================================
--- test/dapl_performance_util.c (revision 2522)
+++ test/dapl_performance_util.c (working copy)
@@ -76,17 +76,20 @@
}
pipeline_len = DT_min (
- DT_min (test_ptr->cmd->num_iterations,
- test_ptr->cmd->pipeline_len),
- DT_min (test_ptr->ia_attr.max_dto_per_ep,
- test_ptr->ia_attr.max_evd_qlen));
+ DT_min (test_ptr->cmd->num_iterations,
+ test_ptr->cmd->pipeline_len),
+ test_ptr->ia_attr.max_dto_per_ep);
+/* DT_min (test_ptr->ia_attr.max_dto_per_ep, */
+/* test_ptr->ia_attr.max_evd_qlen) */
+/* ); */
Could we initialize the ia_attr.max_evd_qlen value correctly in the
provider?
if ( RDMA_READ == test_ptr->cmd->op.transfer_type )
- {
- pipeline_len = DT_min (pipeline_len,
- test_ptr->ia_attr.max_rdma_read_per_ep_in);
- pipeline_len = DT_min (pipeline_len,
- test_ptr->ia_attr.max_rdma_read_per_ep_out);
+ {
+/* max_rdma_read_per_ep_in max_rdma_read_per_ep_out are not set by
gen2 */
+/* pipeline_len = DT_min (pipeline_len,
*/
+/* test_ptr->ia_attr.max_rdma_read_per_ep_in);
*/
+/* pipeline_len = DT_min (pipeline_len,
*/
+/* test_ptr->ia_attr.max_rdma_read_per_ep_out);
*/
Again, why not initialize these correclty in the provider?
}
test_ptr->reqt_evd_length = pipeline_len;
@@ -203,7 +206,7 @@
DAT_HANDLE_NULL, /* rmr */
DT_PERF_SYNC_BUFF_SIZE,
2, /* 2 RMIs */
- 255, /* FIXME should query for this
*/
+ 256, /* FIXME should query for this
*/
Good catch. 255 was not a good value to have been using.
Could we use pt_ptr->provider_attr.optimal_buffer_alignment instead?
FALSE,
FALSE);
if ( !test_ptr->ep_context.bp )
@@ -406,8 +409,8 @@
}
}
+ DT_Tdep_PT_Debug (1, (phead,"Test[" F64x "]: cleanup is done\n",
test_ptr->base_port));
DT_MemListFree (test_ptr->pt_ptr, test_ptr);
- DT_Tdep_PT_Debug (1, (phead,"Test[" F64x "]: cleanup is done\n",
test_ptr->base_port));
Good catch.
return status;
}
Index: test/dapl_bpool.c
===================================================================
--- test/dapl_bpool.c (revision 2522)
+++ test/dapl_bpool.c (working copy)
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@
u64
DT_Bpool_GetRegBuff (Bpool * bpool_ptr, int index)
{
- return ( bpool_ptr->reg_addr + index * bpool_ptr->seg_size );
+ return (virt_to_phys(DT_Bpool_GetBuffer(bpool_ptr,index)));
Was this also a problem in the transaction test?
}
/*****************************************************************************/
--
Itamar
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
