I have trouble to run ib_rdma test over chelsio. I got client reported
"pp_client_connect: unexpected CM event 1" error with or without any
server running. The FW is 7.4.0. I tried stack 1.2.5 and ofed-1.4.1 both
doesn't seem work to me. Anybody has any idea?
Thanks
Shirley
在 2008-10-28二的 10:47 +0200，Vladimir Sokolovsky写道：
> Yossi Etigin wrote:
> > ipoib_open() may be called from ipoib_pkey_poll(), after napi has
> > already been
> > enbaled, and try to enable it again. This triggers BUG_ON test in
> > napi_enable().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yossi Etigin <[EMAIL PRO
We found the same problem during child interface test for ofed-1.4-rc3.
Please help on fixing it in ofed-1.4 daily built.
Thanks
Shirley
___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/15/2008 09:12:51 AM:
> Following this email is a list of 3 patches which implements receive
> core affinity for IPoIB. In tests I made on my machine I got the
> following results with netperf TCP, 4 streams.
>
> Without RCA: 730 MB/s
> With RCA: 970 MB/s
>
> The pat
Hello Eli,
> > In this case, how many tx drop packets from ifconfig output? Should we
> > see ifconfig tx drop packets + tx successfully transmit packets close
> > to netperf packets?
> That's right.
I am looking at ipoib_cm_handle_tx_wc(), there is no tx drop packets
increased in this situat
Hello Or,
We have seen skb_under_panic() in our test enviornment as well. It's
easy reproduce this with tcpdump on and off.
thanks
Shirley
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 14:11 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > https://bugs.openfabrics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=989
> > --- Comment #13 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 200
Hello Roland,
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:46 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Thanks, applied with some cleanups as below.
Thanks!
> As an aside, in the case where we need to use a fragment in the receive
> skb, does it make sense to make the initial linear part bigger so the
> TCP and IP headers fit t
equal to HCA IB MTU size. The first buffer is
for IPoIB header + GRH header. The second buffer is IPoIB payload, which
is 4K-4.
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h | 50 +-
drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 15:36 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > + unsigned int max_ib_mtu;
>
> I don't see where this is ever set?
>
> - R.
It is set in ipoib_main.c, ipoib_add_port()
+ if (!ib_query_port(hca, port, &attr))
+ priv->max_ib_mtu = ib_mtu_enum_to_int(attr.max_mtu
This patch enabled 4K MTU support for IPoIB UD.
I fixed unnecessary define in [RFC][1/2] patch
since there is only 2 buffers are needed. I will
integrate any comments later for this patchset and
resubmit it. I have touched test this patch for branch-2.6.25
git tree.
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma
This patch defines some parameters and creates a couple of APIs and for UD RX
S/G to be used later.
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h | 48 ++
1 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff -
Here is a patchset to enable IPoIB UD 4K MTU support for any IB fabric
where the max IPoIB payload can be up to 4K. This patchset uses two S/G
buffers when IPoIB payload + IB_GRH header size is greater than
PAGE_SIZE. The first buffer size is IB_GRH_HEAD + IPOIB_ENCAP_LEN. The
second buffer is the
Hello Tziporet,
Yes, that's I am working on. I am going on vacation next week, that's why I
hesitated to submit this patch this week since I can't respond to the
review comments on time. If submitting the patch on April.1 is too late, I
can submit this patch by tomorrow. How do you think?
t
Hello Tziporet,
>fix 4k MTU with IPoIB (bug 951)
According to the bug report: In RC5, IPoIB does not work on the QLogic 7140
SDR card. This needs to be fixed for the release.
I didn't see any evidence this is a 4K MTU bug. How 4K MTU patch impact
7140 SDR card? And more inside?
Thanks
Shirl
Hello Ralph,
Ralph Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/14/2008 10:29:43 AM:
> The setup is two nodes, any QLogic HCA, running IPoIB-CM with
> 65520 MTU running netperf, iperf, etc.
> I haven't tried mixed sets of QLogic & Mellanox but I wouldn't
> be surprised to find similar results.
> I
Hello Roland,
Do you have any suggestions on how to debug this problem? How can we
hack the mthca/ipoib code to narrow down the root cause of the problem?
>From the behavior it looks like the local resource temp unavailable, but
it could be something else.
Thanks
Shirley
Hello Ralph,
Thanks for sharing what you have found. Do you have any tool to log
the device flow control? It would be good if the root cause can be figured
out.
Thanks
Shirley
Ralph Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/14/2008 10:29:43 AM:
> The setup is two nodes, any QLogic HCA,
Hello Pradeep,
The "send completion errors" indicates the packet hasn't been sent out
to the wire. It seems the retries you have added induced a little bit
delay for the packet to be sent out successfully, which might indicates
some flow control or other issues in the device transport layer?
Rol
diff here.
Appreciate if you can help here.
thanks
Shirley
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -urpN ofed/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c
ofed_a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c
--- ofed/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c2008-02-12
10:53:0
> I saw cases where a fast sender consumed the TX ring and I solved this by
> increasing the size of the tx queue. I will try to connect ConnectX
> with Sinai
> and see if there are such issues.
Which indicates we really need to fix bug 907.
Thanks
Shirley
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 10:04 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Also here, does this problem exist in the 2.6.25-rc1 upstream code as
> well? from the change log I don't understand the source of the
> problem
> (only the symptom of failing to destroy ipoib/cm rx QP) and the
> solution.
>
> Or.
I believe
Hello Ralph,
This patch looks OK to me. Let's wait for Eli's response.
Thanks
Shirley___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Hello Ralph,
I looked at ehca and mthca, in create_ah(), both driver didn't check
dlid condition check like ipath here. In the port initilizaiton,
priv->local_lid is set to 0 which is created by ipoib_0190_unsig_udqp.patch
in RC4. I will let Eli look at this problem.
static struct ib_a
Thanks Nam. I will fix it along with ipoib_sg_skb_put_frags() optimization.
Thanks
Shirley
Hoang-Nam
Nguyen
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 18:16 -0800, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> # cat /etc/*release
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5 (Tikanga)
> # uname -r
> 2.6.18-8.el5
>
> 4K PAGE_SIZE
I don't have ipath driver here. Otherwise I could try them out.
A couple suggestions here, could you please try out?
Hello Ralph,
What's ifconfig ib0 output?
> > We can reproduce the problem here.
> > We haven't made any ib_ipath driver changes between RC3 and RC4
> > so some recent patch has broken us.
> > I'm in the process of looking at it.
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 17:17 -0800, Arlin Davis wrote:
> > >
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 18:25 +0200, Tziporet Koren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We will have OFED 1.3-rc4 tomorrow after one more night of regression
>
> It will include:
>
>1. IPoIB: Non-SRQ for CM mode
>2. IPOIB: 4K MTU
>3. IPoIB - Small messages improvements
>
> Note that today's latest build
Hello Or,
I found out that if you increase send_queue_size and recv_queue_size,
like 1K, this problem will be gone.
Thanks
Shirley
___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Tziporet Koren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/05/2008 12:07:28
PM:
> Please test on RHREL 5 too
> What are your stress tests?
Ok. The stress test is similar to netperf/netserver. But it's
bi-directional multiple streams. I have stressed the stream to 150, duplex
running overnight.
> Please
Hello Tziporet,
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:56 +0200, Tziporet Koren wrote:
> Shirley Ma wrote:
> >
> > Hello Tziporet,
> >
> > The problem was because of the last check in of small UDP performance
> > patch. It changed the receiving path completely. And I only go
08:19 AM
Shirley Ma wrote:
> I found one one line was out side "for loop" when merging this patch
> with current git-tree. This caused UD_POST_RCV_COUNT = 16 wrong. I have
> fixed it. This i
I found one one line was out side "for loop" when merging this patch
with current git-tree. This caused UD_POST_RCV_COUNT = 16 wrong. I have
fixed it. This is the updated patch.
Thanks
Shirley
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -urpN ofed_kernel_a/driver
Eli,
Please look at this issues ASAP. Without your patch everything works
well.
Thanks
Shirley
___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
;stats vs.
dev->stats. If you have any problem to create the backport patch, let me
know. I will ask Nam to help. The attachment is for you to easily apply
the patch, my email might have issues.
Thanks
Shirley
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -urpN ofed_1_3_a/drivers/
Hello all,
I have created the patch and tested without Eli's patch but with
Pradeep's patch. It works OK. Then I create another patch with Eli and
Pradeep's patch against today's ofed-1.3 git tree. The ping worked for a
while then stopped. I will try to debug it.
And We have found a crash in tod
that
would be nice. If this is any issue, I will ask Nam to help out.
I have touch tested mthca for 2K MTU for the updated patch. More test
are going on.
thanks
Shirley
Signed-off-by Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h | 28 +++-
drivers/inf
Tziporet Koren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/04/2008 08:14:08
AM:
> OK - go ahead and regenerate patch and we will be able to include it in
RC4
> BTW - how did you test it with mthca? It does not support 4K MTU. You
> can test it with ConnectX since it does supports 4K MTU (with a special
Hello Tziporet,
Eli has reviewed the IPoIB-UD 4K mtu patchset. He suggested an
alternative way (reserve one buffer for all header including GRH,
IPoIB-ethernet, IP header, TCP header, and leave the user data in other
buffer) for the implementation but This approach can't avoid if condit
Thanks for everyone here. I appreciate your comments and effort. The
big challenge for us is how to sync features/blockers with OFED release
Distros release. Most of our customers prefer Distros release so they
can get same level of support as other pieces. If OFED could work with
Distros r
> Pradeep,
> We tries to apply this patch for OFED 1.3 and its breaks some of the
> backports.
> Please use the makedist script on the ofa server (there is an
> explanation in the developers Wiki) and fix this so we can try to apply it
> Vlad will help you later today too
>
> Thanks,
> Tziporet
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.
Shi
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
___
ewg mailing list
ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
http://l
> In addition, we should talk about how to integrate patches being queued
> in upper stream but not in OFED, like IPoIB noSRQ. There is always a
> window between OFED release and kernel release, a window between Distro
> release and OFED release. Some customers are targeted OFED release, some
> cu
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:10 -0800, Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
> Tziporet wrote,
> >* Delay 1.3 release in a week
> >* Do RC4 next week - Feb 6
> >* Add RC5 on Feb 18 - this will be the GOLD version
> >* GA release on Feb 25
>
>
> >All - please reply if this is acceptable
>
> I hat
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_0
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 14:03 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
> >The main reason is not the bugs but the features supported by IBM - CM
> >support for non SRQ and 4K MTU
>
> These are entirely my opinions, but...
>
> OFED isn't even at RC1 if it's not at feature freeze...
>
> OFED has moved well beyond t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/30/2008 08:40:10 AM:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm...I'd like to put my $.02 in here. I don't have any visibility
> > into what drives the OFED schedule, so I have no clue as to why people
> > don't want to slip the schedule for this change. I'm sure you g
Hello Tziporet,
> Full features list will be published in a different mail
Do we limit the features only on the list? I only saw IPoIB-CM w/o
SRQ. My impression was whenever the features go into 2.6.23, then they
will be in ofed-1.3. Are you saying that we only limit the list features
48 matches
Mail list logo
