Ok, thanks.
For clarification, the model we're using at the moment looks roughly
like this:
orte_init();
forever () {
if (do_our_stuff() == GAME_OVER)
break;
opal_event_loop(OPAL_EVLOOP_ONCE);
}
orte_finalize();
The simplest change for us would be something like:
orte_init();
forever () {
if (do_our_stuff() == GAME_OVER)
break;
if (opal_event_loop(OPAL_EVLOOP_ONCE) != ORTE_SUCCESS) {
clean_up_our_stuff();
break;
}
}
orte_finalize();
Greg
On Apr 20, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
You make a good point about the library not calling exit(). I'll
have to recruit some help to look at the notion of opal_even_loop
returning an error value - it isn't entirely clear who it would
return it to in our system,. Even though I understand how someone
in your situation would handle it, I have to ensure that it doesn't
cause the base system problems, or force a major code revision that
would need to be scheduled into the project.
We'll have to get back to you on this - most of the folks are at a
workshop this week, so it will probably be next week before we can
discuss it.
Ralph
Greg Watson wrote:
The simplest thing for us would be for opal_event_loop() to return
an error value. That way we can detect the situation and clean up
our system. At the moment we're not trying to restart orted, so
clean recovery of orte is not that important, though ultimately I
would think it is desirable. Other alternatives are to pass you an
error handler that you call, or you could send a signal that we
can trap.
>From our perspective, we're simply calling a library that does
stuff. Having the library call exit() at any point is a major
problem for applications trying to do more than run a single job.
Greg
On Apr 20, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Well, I actually don't know much about opal_event_loop and/or how
it is intended to work. My guess is that:
(a) your remote orted is acting as the seed and your local
process (the one in Eclipse) is running as a client to that seed
- at least, that was the case last I talked to Nathan
(b) when the seed orted dies, it is the oob in your local client
that actually detects socket closure and decides that - since it
is the seed that has lost contact - the local application must
abort.
(c) the errmgr.abort function does exactly what it was supposed
to do - it provides an immediate way of killing the local process.
I'd be a little hesitant to recommend overloading the
errmgr.abort function as you really do want the local processes
to die when losing connection to the seed (at least, until we
develop a recovery capability for the seed orted - which is some
ways off), and (given the way you are running) I'm not sure you
can have a different errmgr for your process while leaving the
other one for everyone else.
Probably the best solution for now would be for us to insert a
(yet another) MCA parameter into the errmgr that would (if set)
have errmgr.abort do something other than exit. The question then
is: what would you want it to do?? We need to have it tell the
rest of the system to stop trying to send messages etc - right
now, I don't think the infrastructure exists to do that short of
killing orte.
We could try to have errmgr.abort do an orte_finalize - that
would kill the orte system without impacting your host program, I
suspect. You would then have to re-initialize, so we'd have to
find some way to let you know that we had finalized. I can't
swear this will work, though - we might well generate a segfault
since this is happening deep down inside the system. We could try
it, though.
Would any of that be of help? Do you have any suggestions on how
we might let you know that we had finalized?
Ralph
Brian Barrett wrote:
On Apr 19, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
We've just run across a rather tricky issue. We're calling
opal_event_loop() to dispatch orte events to an orted that has
been launched separately. However if the orted dies for some
reason (gets a signal or whatever) then opal_event_loop() is
calling exit(). Needless to say, this is not good behavior us.
Any suggestions on how to get around this problem?
Is the orted you are connecting to the "seed" daemon? I think
the only time we should be exiting like that is if the orted was
the seed daemon. I'm not sure what we want to do if that's the
case -- it looks like we're calling errmgr.abort() when badness
happens. I wonder if your application can provide its own errmgr
component that provides an abort that doesn't actually abort?
Just some off the cuff ideas -- Ralph could probably give a
better idea of exactly what is happening... Brian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
