Hi Jeff, On Tuesday 14 July 2009 11:39:59 am Jeff Squyres wrote: > 1. My questions were not answered before the DDT split was merged to > the trunk. OK, sorry about that. Well, actually the answer to both questions are yes.
> 2. The number of "fixup" commits and things that broke on the trunk > after the DDT split was merged seem to indicate a lack of testing. > What happened? Yeah, basically I didn't run through 1. make distcheck, which when copying the sources to a sub-directory and compiling from there was a.) missing the header file in ompi/datatype/ompi_datatype_internal.h in Makefile.am b.) make distcheck later correctly checked opal_datatype_test, however needed to know about opal_ddt_lib.c 2.) didn't check with checkpoint restart (I'd need to setup blcr on this computer again) -- the code was accessing the ddt-structures directly. 3.) Windows compiler needed DECLSPECs. As it turned out, several other header-file and configure changes unrelated to DDT needed to be brought over, which Shiqing did. So, in order to also help others before merging quite intrusive changes, I have started a howto in our wiki: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/wiki/HowtoTesting It would be nice, if you could ammend this over time... What do you think? Obviously I didn't do point 5 ,-( CU, Rainer > (perhaps this was addressed on the teleconf today; I was not there -- > if it was discussed, forgive the redundancy...) > > On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > Two comments: > >> Why : ... Second > >> reason, is that now the data-type engine (without all the MPI > >> knowledge) is available to other projects. > > > > We're still only shipping Open MPI as a whole as our official > > product, right? More specifically: we're not intending to ship OPAL > > independently, right? If other projects want to pick up OPAL > > themselves and use it (e.g., via SVN checkouts, Mercurial clones, > > official OMPI tarballs, etc.), that's fine. But I'd be opposed to > > creating a 2nd official distribution that was OPAL-only. > > > >> Performance tests on the ompi-ddt branch have proven that there is no > >> performance penalties associated with this change (tests done using > >> NetPipe-3.7.1 on smoky using BTL/sm, giving 1.6usecs on this > >> platform). > > > > 1.6us sounds like pretty high sm latency... Is this a slow platform? > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > Cisco Systems -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rainer Keller, PhD Tel: +1 (865) 241-6293 Oak Ridge National Lab Fax: +1 (865) 241-4811 PO Box 2008 MS 6164 Email: kel...@ornl.gov Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008 AIM/Skype: rusraink
