After some work off-list with Tim, it appears that something has been broken again on the OMPI trunk with respect to comm_spawn. It was working two weeks ago, but...sigh.
Anyway, it doesn't appear to have any bearing either way on George's patch(es), so whomever wants to commit them is welcome to do so. Thanks Ralph On 5/29/07 11:44 AM, "Ralph Castain" <r...@lanl.gov> wrote: > > > > On 5/29/07 11:02 AM, "Tim Prins" <tpr...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> Well, after fixing many of the tests... > > Interesting - they worked fine for me. Perhaps a difference in environment. > >> It passes all the tests >> except the spawn tests. However, the spawn tests are seriously broken >> without this patch as well, and the ibm mpi spawn tests seem to work >> fine. > > Then something is seriously wrong. The spawn tests were working as of my > last commit - that is a test I religiously run. If the spawn test here > doesn't work, then it is hard to understand how the mpi spawn can work since > the call is identical. > > Let me see what's wrong first... > >> >> As far as I'm concerned, this should assuage any fear of problems >> with these changes and they should now go in. >> >> Tim >> >> On May 29, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: >> >>> Well, I'll be the voice of caution again... >>> >>> Tim: did you run all of the orte tests in the orte/test/system >>> directory? If >>> so, and they all run correctly, then I have no issue with doing the >>> commit. >>> If not, then I would ask that we not do the commit until that has >>> been done. >>> >>> In running those tests, you need to run them on a multi-node >>> system, both >>> using mpirun and as singletons (you'll have to look at the tests to >>> see >>> which ones make sense in the latter case). This will ensure that we >>> have at >>> least some degree of coverage. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/29/07 9:23 AM, "George Bosilca" <bosi...@cs.utk.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd be happy to commit the patch into the trunk. But after what >>>> happened last time, I'm more than cautious. If the community think >>>> the patch is worth having it, let me know and I'll push it in the >>>> trunk asap. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> george. >>>> >>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Tim Prins wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think both patches should be put in immediately. I have done some >>>>> simple testing, and with 128 nodes of odin, with 1024 processes >>>>> running mpi hello, these decrease our running time from about 14.2 >>>>> seconds to 10.9 seconds. This is a significant decrease, and as the >>>>> scale increases there should be increasing benefit. >>>>> >>>>> I'd be happy to commit these changes if no one objects. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> On May 24, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Ralph H Castain wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks - I'll take a look at this (and the prior ones!) in the next >>>>>> couple >>>>>> of weeks when time permits and get back to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/23/07 1:11 PM, "George Bosilca" <bosi...@cs.utk.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached is another patch to the ORTE layer, more specifically the >>>>>>> replica. The idea is to decrease the number of strcmp by using a >>>>>>> small hash function before doing the strcmp. The hask key for each >>>>>>> registry entry is computed when it is added to the registry. When >>>>>>> we're doing a query, instead of comparing the 2 strings we first >>>>>>> check if the hash key match, and if they do match then we compare >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 2 strings in order to make sure we eliminate collisions from our >>>>>>> answers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is some benefit in terms of performance. It's hardly visible >>>>>>> for few processes, but it start showing up when the number of >>>>>>> processes increase. In fact the number of strcmp in the trace file >>>>>>> drastically decrease. The main reason it works well, is because >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> of the keys start with basically the same chars (such as orte- >>>>>>> blahblah) which transform the strcmp on a loop over few chars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ralph, please consider it for inclusion on the ORTE layer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> george. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
