Hi Terry, On Wednesday 22 August 2007 16:22, Terry D. Dontje wrote: > I thought I would run this by the group before trying to unravel the > code and figure out how to fix the problem. It looks to me from some > experiementation that when a process matches an unexpected message that > the PERUSE framework incorrectly fires a > PERUSE_COMM_MSG_MATCH_POSTED_REQ in addition to a > PERUSE_COMM_REQ_MATCH_UNEX event. I believe this is wrong that the > former event should not be fired in this case. You are right, the former event PERUSE_COMM_MSG_MATCH_POSTED_Q should not be posted, as this was an unexpected message.
> If the above assumption is true I think the problem arises because > PERUSE_COMM_MSG_MATCH_POSTED_REQ event is fired in function > mca_pml_ob1_recv_request_progress which is called by > mca_pml_ob1_recv_request_match_specific when a match of an unexpected > message has occurred. I am wondering if the > PERUSE_COMM_MSG_MATCH_POSTED_REQ event should be moved to a more posted > queue centric routine something like mca_pml_ob1_recv_frag_match? I believe, this is correct -- at least this works for a large message late sender and late receiver test program mpi_peruse.c. Should be fixed with the committed patch v15947. Actually, there are two other items, one is a missing PERUSE_COMM_REQ_REMOVE_FROM_POSTED_Q... Additionally, we have a problem that we fire PERUSE_COMM_REQ_ACTIVATE event for MPI_*Probe-function calls. The solution is to move the pml_base_sendreq.h / pml_base_recv_req.h into pml_ob1_irecv.c, and resp. pml_ob1_isend.c Please see the v15945. With best regards, Rainer -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Inf. Rainer Keller http://www.hlrs.de/people/keller High Performance Computing Tel: ++49 (0)711-685 6 5858 Center Stuttgart (HLRS) Fax: ++49 (0)711-685 6 5832 POSTAL:Nobelstrasse 19 email: kel...@hlrs.de ACTUAL:Allmandring 30, R.O.030 AIM:rusraink 70550 Stuttgart
