Re: [ofa-general] Further 2.6.23 merge plans...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 - Take a look at Sean's local SA caching patches.  I merged
   everything else from Sean's tree, but I'm still undecided about
   these.  I haven't read them carefully yet, but even aside from that
   I don't have a good feeling about whether there's consensus about
   this yet.  Any opinions about merging, for or against, would be
   appreciated here.

Obviously I'm biased here, but we've definitely seen local caching of path records (PR) greatly improve performance for large MPI job runs. (Our largest jobs wouldn't run without it.) The development of the feature was requested and paid for by the US national labs. Infinicon/Silverstorm/QLogic also had this feature in their IB stack for scalability reasons as well. PR caching is done in the stack today by IPoIB.

The implementation is hidden under the current kernel ib_sa interface, is disabled by default, and automatically fails over to standard PR queries if needed. Removing the cache later should be fairly easy.

But to be fair, it will be difficult to enable both QoS and local PR caching. To me, this would be the strongest reason against using it. However, QoS places additional burden on the SA, which will make scaling even more challenging.

- Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux