From owner-freebsd-infiniband@freebsd.org Sat Aug 8 06:54:05 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-infiniband@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25099ACC29 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 06:54:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A76BAFEE for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 06:54:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: by pacrr5 with SMTP id rr5so67208524pac.3 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=QotNDwCroUE+xJ64eXWlrDJmSgh8LXQ/Ed9eITrMnTI=; b=dKtG5w8xfQsH7qi+LCtzeFozIGRTE2WH2FaaTrsbkNuZDOCpD9tZaolsGOH0ripUno Ods9ETYjUtNqaFfboaYcmQ6wlXjsS1Yos8Gnj/Gyq9EQsHoFJNAdsGQ/Iu6deSLDKpqh z2yzAhtx/OQ1zfuCTAsi8ggBB0TqsTA6LOKnbVou2gxDW+eRu2rqFHZoddkvKF93amx7 XvZ8cnF0Md1+IyIX86TVr9NaiFS7GuteHNCk1vZhjZQjxz0UV0mou/bsiP/qieuUaW2S kGBL4q/MCgtU4YmxNa9xFe7GSgiVqudW0UUqxgXlztDE2Kif8U8Yotv145fnSkZblhbw S2dw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmbB7DuW5FOnq1BFidSbNfG655ISzOpolyk54wnbjWJ66vmBezezGr4StE/dVbY8yOlrEsC X-Received: by 10.66.253.170 with SMTP id ab10mr23332451pad.135.1439016839507; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rrcs-66-91-135-210.west.biz.rr.com (rrcs-66-91-135-210.west.biz.rr.com. [66.91.135.210]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15sm8500985pbs.10.2015.08.07.23.53.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 20:53:12 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: NGie Cooper cc: Mark Johnston , freebsd-infiniband@freebsd.org, Benno Rice , Hans Petter Selasky Subject: Re: Enable OFED/Infiniband support in 11.0-RELEASE by default? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <30977F3A-59D1-4CA4-BCF6-9062A04CFF44@gmail.com> <20150807192930.GA88925@muskytusk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-BeenThere: freebsd-infiniband@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Infiniband on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:54:06 -0000 On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, NGie Cooper wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:32:00AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> Hi, >>> One of the complaints from engineers at Isilon I?ve received in the past is that Infiniband/OFED stack support isn?t enabled by default in GENERIC. I would like to enable it by default in GENERIC to improve test coverage by a general audience and ensure that bugs introduced elsewhere (build bugs, network interface, kernel interface bugs) aren?t ignored by accident when running make tinderbox builds as it?s not built by default. >> >> make tinderbox will build LINT kernels, which for amd64 will include the >> OFED stack. >> >> As Jason pointed out, all of the IB stack (including the Linux compat >> shims) can already be built as a KLD. Why not just make WITH_OFED the >> default on amd64 instead? That way the KLDs and userland tools will be >> built by default, and the size of the kernel needn't grow. > > There are a few issues with just doing WITH_OFED, instead of building > both the sys/ofed and contrib/ofed separately: > 1. sys/ofed by itself isn't incredibly useful (as we've seen > internally). Yes, not building opensm can be done if you're running it > on an IB switch, but the diagnostic tools are pretty helpful.. > 2. contrib/ofed has seen its fair share of bugs in the past > compilation wise (either due to interfaces or general header > compilation issues). I'd rather nip these in the bud ASAP instead of > delay them. > 3. Building it just on amd64 might disguise issues with endianness, > 64-bit issues, etc. Again, I want opensm, etc to be as useful on all > platforms, if possible. At least when I originally did the port, architectures other than x86/amd64 were not supported because I couldn't find a straightforward way to wrap the linux address handling in a way that was compatible with busdma. Jeff > Thanks! > -NGie >