If you specify '-mca filter xml' on the command line then only the 'xml' component should be opened by mca_base_open. The problem was that the selection logic used -1 as the lowest acceptable priority, which conflicted with the set priority of the 'xml' component. This patch sets this value to INT32_MIN which should be well below any negative priority that a component would set for itself.
Let me know if this works for you and I'll commit it. Cheers, Josh
select.patch
Description: Binary data
On May 9, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Sure - take a look at the hg repository Jeff and I are working on: http://www.open-mpi.org/hg/hgwebdir.cgi/rhc/channelTe opal/mca/filter framework illustrates the problem. I have one componentin there right now, with a default module defined in the base. That component must only be selected if the user calls it. With the currentselect logic, I can't do this - if the priority is >=0, then it always is automatically selected. Priority < 0, never selectable even if specified.Thanks Ralph On 5/9/08 8:52 AM, "Josh Hursey" <jjhur...@open-mpi.org> wrote:Ralph, Can you give me an example of a component that I can look at? It will allow me to test the fix before committing, and to better understand the problem. -- Josh On May 9, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:I just hit a problem with this logic - should be a minor change. We have several frameworks where we have components that are only allowed be selected if the user specifically requests them by stating -mca foo bar. Because it is possible for there to be no other components that want to be selected, and because it is permissible for no components to be selected for that framework, we set bar's priority to be -1. The new select logic will not allow a negative priority to be selected, even if the user specifically requested that component. If we set the priority to be 0, then the system will allow the component to be automatically selected. This is not allowed as it can lead to bad behavior.So what we need the select system to do is say "if someone specified aspecific component, don't worry about the returned priority - just use it" Josh: could you please modify this? Thanks! Ralph On 5/8/08 7:04 PM, "Pak Lui" <pak....@sun.com> wrote:Thanks very much Josh! Will try it out soon. Josh Hursey wrote:Sorry about that. I didn't test that type of option. It should be working in r18418. Let me know if you see any more issues. -- Josh On May 8, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Pak Lui wrote:I think I have a problem but I am not sure. I used to be able to use the circumflex (^) to switch between the gridengine launcher and the ssh launchers by doing something like this, e.g. -mca plm ^gridengine, to exclude some of the components plm (and also in ras). It doesn't seem like the 'negate' is in mca_base_component anymore. I guess I just have to spell out which component I want explicitly... Josh Hursey wrote:This has been committed in r18381 Please let me know if you have any problems with this commit. Cheers, Josh On May 5, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Josh Hursey wrote:Awesome. The branch is updated to the latest trunk head. I encourage folks to check out this repository and make sure that it builds on their system. A normal build of the branch should be enough to find out ifthere are any cut-n-paste problems (though I tried to be careful,mistakes do happen). I haven't heard any problems so this is looking like it will come in tomorrow after the teleconf. I'll ask again there to see if there are any voices of concern. Cheers, Josh On May 5, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:This all sounds good to me! On Apr 29, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:What: Add mca_base_select() and adjust frameworks & components to use it. Why: Consolidation of code for general goodness. Where: https://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/ompi/tmp-public/jjh-mca- play When: Code ready now. Documentation ready soon. Timeout: May 6, 2008 (After teleconf) [1 week] Discussion: -----------For a number of years a few developers have been talking aboutcreating a MCA base component selection function. For various reasons this was never implemented. Recently I decided to give it a try. A base select function will allow Open MPI to provide completely consistent selection behavior for many of its frameworks (18 of 31 to be exact at the moment). The primary goal of this work is to improving code maintainability through code reuse. Other benefits also result such as a slightly smaller memory footprint. The mca_base_select() function represented the most commonly used logic for component selection: Select the one component with the highest priority and close all of the not selected components. This function can be found at the path below in the branch: opal/mca/base/mca_base_components_select.c To support this I had to formalize a query() function in the mca_base_component_t of the form:int mca_base_query_component_fn(mca_base_module_t **module, int*priority); This function is specified after the open and close component functions in this structure as to allow compatibility with frameworks that do not use the base selection logic. Frameworks that do *not* usethis function are *not* effected by this commit. However, everycomponent in the frameworks that use the mca_base_select function must adjust their component query function to fit that specified above. 18 frameworks in Open MPI have been changed. I have updated all of the components in the 18 frameworks available in the trunk on my branch. The effected frameworks are: - OPAL Carto - OPAL crs - OPAL maffinity - OPAL memchecker - OPAL paffinity - ORTE errmgr - ORTE ess - ORTE Filem - ORTE grpcomm - ORTE odls - ORTE pml - ORTE ras - ORTE rmaps - ORTE routed - ORTE snapc - OMPI crcp - OMPI dpm - OMPI pubsub There was a question of the memory footprint change as a result of this commit. I used 'pmap' to determine process memory footprint of a hello world MPI program. Static and Shared build numbers are belowalong with variations on launching locally and to a single nodeallocated by SLURM. All of this was on Indiana University's Odin machine. We compare against the trunk (r18276) representing the last SVN sync point of the branch. Process(shared)| Trunk | Branch | Diff (Improvement) ---------------+----------+---------+------- mpirun (orted) | 39976K | 36828K | 3148K hello (0) | 229288K | 229268K | 20K hello (1) | 229288K | 229268K | 20K ---------------+----------+---------+------- mpirun | 40032K | 37924K | 2108K orted | 34720K | 34660K | 60K hello (0) | 228404K | 228384K | 20K hello (1) | 228404K | 228384K | 20K Process(static)| Trunk | Branch | Diff (Improvement) ---------------+----------+---------+------- mpirun (orted) | 21384K | 21372K | 12K hello (0) | 194000K | 193980K | 20K hello (1) | 194000K | 193980K | 20K ---------------+----------+---------+------- mpirun | 21384K | 21372K | 12K orted | 21208K | 21196K | 12K hello (0) | 193116K | 193096K | 20K hello (1) | 193116K | 193096K | 20K As you can see there are some small memory footprint improvements onmy branch that result from this work. The size of the Open MPIprojectshrinks a bit as well. This commit cuts between 3,500 and 2,000lines of code (depending on how you count) so about a ~1% code shrink. The branch is stable in all of the testing I have done, but there are some platforms on which I cannot test. So please give this branch a try and let me know if you find any problems. Cheers, Josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel-- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems _______________________________________________ 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-- - Pak Lui pak....@sun.com _______________________________________________ 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
