-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 451
fabtests: implement pausable timer #11507
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
alekswn
wants to merge
1
commit into
ofiwg:main
Choose a base branch
from
alekswn:pausable-timer
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+218
−188
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could this give you false performance numbers? Depending on your completion level, the send may have not been completely sent so you could be reporting higher bandwidth. Same on the receive side for the RMA ops. The RMA ops aren't going to generate completions so if you stop the timer right after get_rx_comp you're not actually waiting for all the messages to come in. Unfortunately, for RMA ops you kind of have to wait for the sync message to ensure you're stopping the timer when all the data has arrived.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense. The rationale here was to exclude server -> client send latency from time calculation. For writedata benchmark we observed synchronization overhead of the same order of magnitude as overall timing due to connection setup delay for EFA.
Connection setup delay is only seen for a first few synchronizations, but we see 30% error in bandwidth measurements attributed to connection setup latency. The delay is negligible after first 5 synchronizations.
The reason the synchronization delay affects writedata test so much is asymmetry of the test. Client makes a lot of writes in the loop, but server replies with just a single send at the end of each window. We are warming up client->server path with the warm-up iterations, but do not warm up server->client connection.
If we want keep synchronization timing included, I think an alternative approach would be to warm up server->client path as well. Does it sound like a better approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Gotcha, thanks for the context. I think it's ok to warmup both sides. In my opinion, it's a little weird that the writedata function has such a different model than the other functions. I understand why (because of the rx completion) but I think it would be ok to have all ops behave in the same pattern. Can we change writedata to be two sided? Would that help as well? Or are you explicitly looking to have it remain a one-sided test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for suggestion!
Will try to make it symmetric.