On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Eli Dorfman (Voltaire)
<dorfman....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix sl2vl configuration
>
> For non-optimized sl2vl configuration in and out ports were reversed.
Are you sure these are reversed ? Any idea which commit introduced
this reversal of in and out ports ?
> For optimal sl2vl added override of default ALL settting with port's
> sl2vl when operational VL was other than the default port.
What is the motivation to override when the operational VLs is
different ? Why is that better than what is done currently ?
Is this really a policy issue ?
IMO there are two separate issues in this patch and they should be in
separate patches (for better git bisection).
Also, a couple of (possibly related) questions below.
> Signed-off-by: Eli Dorfman <e...@voltaire.com>
> ---
> opensm/opensm/osm_qos.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_qos.c b/opensm/opensm/osm_qos.c
> index a571370..de0ae23 100644
> --- a/opensm/opensm/osm_qos.c
> +++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_qos.c
> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static ib_api_status_t sl2vl_update_table(osm_sm_t * sm,
> osm_physp_t * p,
> tbl.raw_vl_by_sl[i] = (vl1 << 4) | vl2;
> }
>
> - if (!force_update && (p_tbl = osm_physp_get_slvl_tbl(p, in_port)) &&
> + if (!force_update && in_port && (p_tbl = osm_physp_get_slvl_tbl(p,
> in_port)) &&
> !memcmp(p_tbl, &tbl, sizeof(tbl)))
> return IB_SUCCESS;
Why exclude port 0 here ? Is it related to the change noted below ?
> @@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ static int qos_extports_setup(osm_sm_t * sm, osm_node_t
> *node,
> unsigned num_ports = osm_node_get_num_physp(node);
> int ret = 0;
> unsigned i, j;
> + uint8_t op_vl1;
>
> for (i = 1; i < num_ports; i++) {
> p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, i);
> @@ -225,17 +226,31 @@ static int qos_extports_setup(osm_sm_t * sm, osm_node_t
> *node,
> if (ib_switch_info_get_opt_sl2vlmapping(&node->sw->switch_info) &&
> sm->p_subn->opt.use_optimized_slvl) {
> p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, 1);
> + op_vl1 = ib_port_info_get_op_vls(&p->port_info);
> force_update = p->need_update || sm->p_subn->need_update;
> - return sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, 1, 0x30000, force_update,
> - &qcfg->sl2vl);
> + if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, 0, 0x30000, force_update,
Why is the third parameter (in_port) changed from 1 to 0 here ? Maybe
that's related to the change above for the skipping of port 0 in
sl2vl_update_table.
-- Hal
> + &qcfg->sl2vl))
> + ret = -1;
> + /* overwrite default ALL configuration if port's
> + op_vl is different */
> + for (i = 2; i < num_ports; i++) {
> + p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, i);
> + if (ib_port_info_get_op_vls(&p->port_info) != op_vl1
> &&
> + sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, 0, 0x20000 | i,
> force_update,
> + &qcfg->sl2vl))
> + ret = -1;
> + }
> + return ret;
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < num_ports; i++) {
> + /* non optimized sl2vl configuration */
> + i = ib_switch_info_is_enhanced_port0(&node->sw->switch_info) ? 0 : 1;
> + for (; i < num_ports; i++) {
> p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, i);
> force_update = p->need_update || sm->p_subn->need_update;
> j = ib_switch_info_is_enhanced_port0(&node->sw->switch_info) ?
> 0 : 1;
> for (; j < num_ports; j++)
> - if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, i, i << 8 | j,
> + if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, j, j << 8 | i,
> force_update, &qcfg->sl2vl))
> ret = -1;
> }
> --
> 1.5.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
