Terry Dontje wrote:
> Iain Bason wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>> Mmmm... good point. I was thinking specifically of the
>>> if_in|exclude behavior in the openib BTL. That uses strcmp, not
>>> strncmp. Here's a complete list:
>>> ompi_info --param all all --parsable | grep include | grep :value:
>>> Do we know what these others do? I only checked openib_if_*clude --
>>> it's strcmp.
>> I haven't looked at those, but it's easy to grep for strncmp...
>> It looks as though sctp is the only other BTL that uses strncmp.
>> Of course, if we decide to change the default so that it no longer
>> includes "lo" then maybe using strncmp doesn't matter. The problem
>> has been that the name of the interface is different on different
>> (I should note that the default also excludes "sppp". I don't know
>> anything about that interface.)
> I may be wrong for the usage here but the old Sun Starcats had a tcp
> interface named sppp to its diagnostic processor that we needed to skip.
> Not sure if this is the same reason done here, I couldn't find where
> sppp was referenced so I could find the history of the line in opengrok.
Close, r19988 added sppp to the excluded interfaces for the Sun M9000
server. I believe for the same reason I gave above.
>>>>> Additionally, if loopback is now handled properly via change #2,
>>>>> shouldn't the default value for the btl_tcp_if_exclude parameter
>>>>> now be empty?
>>>> That's a good question. Enabling the "lo" interface results in
>>>> intra-node messages being striped across that interface in addition
>>>> to the others on a system. I don't know what impact that would
>>>> have, if any.
>>> sm and self should still be prioritized above it, right? If so, we
>>> should be ok.
>> Yes, that's true. It would only affect those who restrict intra-node
>> communication to TCP.
>>> However, I think you're right that the addition of striping across
>>> lo* in addition to the other interfaces might have an unknown effect.
>>> Here's a random question -- if a user does not use the sm btl, would
>>> sending messages through lo for on-node communication be potentially
>>> better than sending it through a real device, given that that real
>>> device may be far away (in the NUMA sense of "far")? I.e., are OS's
>>> typically smart enough to know that loopback traffic may be able to
>>> stay local to the NUMA node, vs. sending it out to a device and
>>> back? Or are OS's smart enough to know that if the both ends of a
>>> TCP socket are on the same node -- regardless of what IP interface
>>> they use -- and if both processes are on the same NUMA locality,
>>> that the data can stay local and not have to make a round trip to
>>> the device?
>>> (I admit that this is a fairly corner case -- doing on-node
>>> communication but *not* using the sm btl...)
>> Good question. For the loopback interface there is no physical
>> device, so there should be no NUMA effect. For an interface with a
>> physical device there may be some reason that a packet would actually
>> have to go out to the device. If there is no such reason, I would
>> expect Unix to be smart enough not to do it, given how much
>> intra-node TCP traffic one commonly sees on Unix. I couldn't hazard
>> a guess about Windows.
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list