Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Or Gerlitz wrote: Koen Segers wrote: I just saw some patches on the mailing list concerning csum offloading. Are these applied in RC3? Or are they going to be introduced in the daily build of tomorrow? Is it correct to state that these patches replace the hw_csum parameter by offloading the csum computation to the mthca? This would mean that the results should be similar also. no and no, best if you take a look on the presentation @ http://openfabrics.org/archives/nov2007sc/IPoIB-UD%20SO.pdf Basically the "checksum offloading" patches are for the datagram mode and is the standard offload as in the Ethernet world, where the "hw_csum" patch was for the connected mode. Does the new offload patch depend on the type of hca being used? According to lspci, we have the "InfiniBand: Mellanox Technologies MT25208 InfiniHost III Ex (rev a0)" card. Do these patches work on a sles 10 sp1 installed on x3755 and x3655 machines of IBM that have this card inserted? checksum offloading is supported by the connectx and some of the other Mellanox devices, I am quite sure that 25208 is one of them, but you have to clarify this with Mellanox ConnectX and MT25208 InfiniHost III Ex supports IPoIB "checksum offloading" Tziporet ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 15:08 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > checksum offloading is supported by the connectx and some of the other > Mellanox devices, I am quite sure that 25208 is one of them, but you > have to clarify this with Mellanox > Device ID 25208, known as Tavor mode, does not support checksum offloading. It has to have device ID 25218 to have this capability. Some of the cards can be burnt with FW which makes it 25218 and thus have checksum offloading. ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Koen Segers wrote: I just saw some patches on the mailing list concerning csum offloading. Are these applied in RC3? Or are they going to be introduced in the daily build of tomorrow? Is it correct to state that these patches replace the hw_csum parameter by offloading the csum computation to the mthca? This would mean that the results should be similar also. no and no, best if you take a look on the presentation @ http://openfabrics.org/archives/nov2007sc/IPoIB-UD%20SO.pdf Basically the "checksum offloading" patches are for the datagram mode and is the standard offload as in the Ethernet world, where the "hw_csum" patch was for the connected mode. Does the new offload patch depend on the type of hca being used? According to lspci, we have the "InfiniBand: Mellanox Technologies MT25208 InfiniHost III Ex (rev a0)" card. Do these patches work on a sles 10 sp1 installed on x3755 and x3655 machines of IBM that have this card inserted? checksum offloading is supported by the connectx and some of the other Mellanox devices, I am quite sure that 25208 is one of them, but you have to clarify this with Mellanox Is bonding going to work with this type of offloading? sure! and if not, we will fix it. Or. ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 18:42 +0200, Tziporet Koren wrote: > Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > > This is interesting report, however, since currently the hw checksum > > patch in not being submitted to the mainline kernel and it is also > > about to be removed from ofed 1.3 (Tziporet, can you update on that?), > > I am not going to look into that. > > > > Or. > > > the hw checksum patch was removed from OFED 1.3 I just saw some patches on the mailing list concerning csum offloading. Are these applied in RC3? Or are they going to be introduced in the daily build of tomorrow? Is it correct to state that these patches replace the hw_csum parameter by offloading the csum computation to the mthca? This would mean that the results should be similar also. Does the new offload patch depend on the type of hca being used? According to lspci, we have the "InfiniBand: Mellanox Technologies MT25208 InfiniHost III Ex (rev a0)" card. Do these patches work on a sles 10 sp1 installed on x3755 and x3655 machines of IBM that have this card inserted? Is bonding going to work with this type of offloading? Kind Regards Koen > > Tziporet > > ___ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general *** Disclaimer *** Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep Auguste Reyerslaan 52, 1043 Brussel nv van publiek recht BTW BE 0244.142.664 RPR Brussel http://www.vrt.be/disclaimer ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ewg] Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:29 +0200, Eli Cohen wrote: > If you're using an ofed tree in which this patch applies, then just > removing it will cause quite a few conflicts on subsequent patches. I > would suggest you to re-create your patches against the current ofed > git tree. Thanks, will do. Shirley ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ewg] Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 14:21 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote: > Hello Eli, > > > ipoib_0030_hw_csum.patch has been removed > > Would removing this patch cause any errors on applying the rest of > patches? If not, I will remove it for our testing as well. > If you're using an ofed tree in which this patch applies, then just removing it will cause quite a few conflicts on subsequent patches. I would suggest you to re-create your patches against the current ofed git tree. ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ewg] Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Hello Eli, > ipoib_0030_hw_csum.patch has been removed Would removing this patch cause any errors on applying the rest of patches? If not, I will remove it for our testing as well. Thanks Shirley ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 19:35 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote: > Hello Tziporet, > > > the hw checksum patch was removed from OFED 1.3 > > > > Tziporet > > Could youp please specify which patch has been removed? I still can > see a list of patches under RC3. here they are: > > ipoib_0010_Add-high-dma-support-to-ipoib.patch > ipoib_0020_Add-s-g-support-for-IPOIB.patch > ipoib_0030_hw_csum.patch > ipoib_0040_checksum-offload.patch > ipoib_0050_Add-LSO-support.patch > ipoib_0060_ethtool-support.patch > ipoib_0070_modiy_cq_params.patch > ipoib_0080_broadcast_null.patch > ipoib_0110_set_default_cq_patams.patch > ipoib_0030_hw_csum.patch has been removed ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Hello Tziporet, > the hw checksum patch was removed from OFED 1.3 > > Tziporet Could youp please specify which patch has been removed? I still can see a list of patches under RC3. here they are: ipoib_0010_Add-high-dma-support-to-ipoib.patch ipoib_0020_Add-s-g-support-for-IPOIB.patch ipoib_0030_hw_csum.patch ipoib_0040_checksum-offload.patch ipoib_0050_Add-LSO-support.patch ipoib_0060_ethtool-support.patch ipoib_0070_modiy_cq_params.patch ipoib_0080_broadcast_null.patch ipoib_0110_set_default_cq_patams.patch thanks Shirley___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Or Gerlitz wrote: This is interesting report, however, since currently the hw checksum patch in not being submitted to the mainline kernel and it is also about to be removed from ofed 1.3 (Tziporet, can you update on that?), I am not going to look into that. Or. the hw checksum patch was removed from OFED 1.3 Tziporet ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 16:26 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > Why is hw_checksum not submitted to the mainline kernel (and thus > also > > removed from ofed)? We definitely want to enable hw_checksum as it > gives > > an enormous bandwidth boost with ipoib. > > you should ask that the individual/s that are signed on the patch Is this Michael S. Tsirkin? I don't know where else to find this information. Regards, Koen *** Disclaimer *** Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep Auguste Reyerslaan 52, 1043 Brussel nv van publiek recht BTW BE 0244.142.664 RPR Brussel http://www.vrt.be/disclaimer ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Koen Segers wrote: Do you mean that bonding with hw_csum enabled will never work? no, I meant to say that I am not enough into the details and mechanics of the hw_csum approach/patch and since I understand it is going to be removed, I will not look now on going into this report. Why is hw_checksum not submitted to the mainline kernel (and thus also removed from ofed)? We definitely want to enable hw_checksum as it gives an enormous bandwidth boost with ipoib. you should ask that the individual/s that are signed on the patch Or ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:34 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > Stijn De Smet wrote: > > I'm trying to get IPOIB bonding to work with the hw_csum enabled. > ... > > When I disable hw_csums, I can start iperf's, pull and replug all cables > > and the iperf's run uninterrupted. > > This is interesting report, however, since currently the hw checksum > patch in not being submitted to the mainline kernel and it is also about > to be removed from ofed 1.3 (Tziporet, can you update on that?), I am > not going to look into that. Do you mean that bonding with hw_csum enabled will never work? Why is hw_checksum not submitted to the mainline kernel (and thus also removed from ofed)? We definitely want to enable hw_checksum as it gives an enormous bandwidth boost with ipoib. Koen. > > Or. > > ___ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general *** Disclaimer *** Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep Auguste Reyerslaan 52, 1043 Brussel nv van publiek recht BTW BE 0244.142.664 RPR Brussel http://www.vrt.be/disclaimer ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [ofa-general] Bonding and hw_csum
Stijn De Smet wrote: I'm trying to get IPOIB bonding to work with the hw_csum enabled. ... When I disable hw_csums, I can start iperf's, pull and replug all cables and the iperf's run uninterrupted. This is interesting report, however, since currently the hw checksum patch in not being submitted to the mainline kernel and it is also about to be removed from ofed 1.3 (Tziporet, can you update on that?), I am not going to look into that. Or. ___ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
