On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Ok, with Terry's help, I found a segv in the coll sm. If you run without > the sm btl, there's an obvious bad parameter that we're passing that results > in a segv. > > LANL -- can you confirm / deny that these are the segv's that you were > seeing? Yes we can deny that those are the segv's we were seeing - we definitely had the sm btl active. I'll rerun the test on Monday and add the stacktrace to your ticket. Ralph > > While fixing this, I noticed that the sm btl and sm coll are sharing an > mpool when both are running. This probably used to be a good idea way back > when (e.g., when we were using a lot more shmem than we needed and core > counts were lower), but it seems like a bad idea now (e.g., the btl/sm is > fairly specific about the size of the mpool that is created -- it's just big > enough for its data structures). > > I'm therefore going to change the mpool string names that btl/sm and > coll/sm are looking for so that they get unique sm mpool modules. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >
