Re: [OMPI devel] opal_output_verbose usage guidelines
Yes I use opal_show_help in other places but that is an all or nothing proposition. I think the ability to be verbose or quiet can be very usefull to end users and that is what I need at the moment. -DON Jeff Squyres wrote: On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Don Kerr wrote: You want a warning to show when: 1. the udapl btl is used 2. --enable-debug was not configured 3. the user specifies btl_*_verbose (or btl_*_debug) >= some_value Is that right? If so, is the intent to warn that somen checks are not being performed that one would otherwise assume are being performed (because of #3)? #1 and #2 is just to convey the environment I expect the user to be running in, not the error case. Interpretation of #3 is a little askew. uDAPL gets its HCA information from /etc/dat.conf. This file has an entry for each HCA, even those that are potentially not "UP". Also it appears the OFED stack includes by default an entry for "OpenIB-bond" which I have not figured out what it is yet. In anycase uDAPL has trouble distinguishing if an HCA is down intentionally or if is down because something is wrong. So the uDAPL BTL attempts to open all of the entries in this file. You might want to ping the OFA general mailing list or the DAT mailing lists with these kinds of questions...? And the issues becomes how much information to toss back to the user. If a node has two IB interfaces but only one is up, do they want see a warning message about one of the interfaces being down when they already know this by looking at "ifconfig"? I think not. But this could be valueable information if there is a real problem. True. FWIW, in the openib btl, we only use HCA ports that are active (i.e., have a link signal and have been recognized/allowed on the network by the SM); we silently ignore those that are not active. We do not currently have a diagnostic that shows which ports are ignored because they are not active, IIRC. Since its just one message at this point I think I will go with the base output_id and if I need more I will look to create a component specific id. Thanks Jeff. FWIW, we always treat the opal_output_verbose output as optional output. If there's something that you definitely want to toss back to the user, use opal_show_help. I expect to pursue this in order to find a better way to distinguish between an interface that is up or down but I don't have a solution at the moment. -DON ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Re: [OMPI devel] opal_output_verbose usage guidelines
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Don Kerr wrote: Are there any guidelines about the use of opal_output_verbose? Not so much. - Are there hidden meanings for a given verbose level? e.g. 0 reserved for PML, or 50-100 for BTL and so on Nope. The output was designed to use the values with >= kinds of checking; i.e., the higher the verbose value the user gives, the more output they see. I.e., the values are not used in a "bit flag" sense (i.e., each bit enables/disables a specific set of output). - Maybe the base component output_id is ok to use in situation XYZ but a component specific output_id should be used in situation ABC? Or should never be used for component specific output? I've typically used the base component output_id whenever possible. I usually started off having an output ID for a specific component, but usually that was for debugging (and therefore having oodles and oodles of output). By the time I was done, I usually had only a few output statements and therefore used the base ID. I guess my suggestion would be: if you're going to have a LOT of output, then make it a component-specific ID. If it's a "reasonable" amount, then just use the base ID. Definitions of those terms are subjective and intentionally fuzzy. :-) Why I ask. I want to report a warning to the user when "--enable- debug" is not configured. I also do not want the error to show up all the time, only when for example --mca btl_base_debug is set to some value. I am thinking I will just use opal_output_verbose but wanted to see if there were any guidelines about its use? Or if I should be thinking about some other option all together. You want a warning to show when: 1. the udapl btl is used 2. --enable-debug was not configured 3. the user specifies btl_*_verbose (or btl_*_debug) >= some_value Is that right? If so, is the intent to warn that somen checks are not being performed that one would otherwise assume are being performed (because of #3)? -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems
