Well, does --disable-multi-threads disable progress threads? And do you want to disable thread support in ORTE because you don't want MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE? Perhaps a third option is a rational way to go?
Brain On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > How about > > --enable-mpi-threads ==> --enable-multi-threads > ENABLE_MPI_THREADS ==> ENABLE_MULTI_THREADS > > Essentially, s/mpi/multi/ig. This gives us "progress thread" support and > "multi thread" support. Similar, but different. > > Another possibility instead of "mpi" could be "concurrent". > > > > On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > >> Jeff - >> >> I think the idea is ok, but I think the name needs some thought. There's >> currently two ways to have the lower layers be thread safe -- enabling MPI >> threads or progress threads. The two can be done independently -- you can >> disable MPI threads and still enable thread support by enabling progress >> threads. >> >> So either that behavior would need to change or we need a better name (in my >> opinion...). >> >> Brian >> >> On Jan 28, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: >> >>> WHAT: Rename --enable-mpi-threads and ENABLE_MPI_THREADS to >>> --enable-thread-safety and ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY, respectively >>> (--enable-mpi-threads will be maintained as a synonym to >>> --enable-thread-safety for backwards compat, of course). >>> >>> WHY: Other projects are starting to use ORTE and OPAL without OMPI. The >>> fact that thread safety in OPAL and ORTE requires a configure switch with >>> "mpi" in the name is very non-intuitive. >>> >>> WHERE: A bunch of places in the code; see attached patch. >>> >>> WHEN: Next Friday COB >>> >>> TIMEOUT: COB, Friday, Feb 5, 2010 >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> >>> More details: >>> >>> Cisco is starting to investigate using ORTE and OPAL in various threading >>> scenarios -- without the OMPI layer. The fact that you need to enable >>> thread safety in ORTE/OPAL with a configure switch that has the word "mpi" >>> in it is extremely counter-intuitive (it bit some of our engineers very >>> badly, and they were mighty annoyed!!). >>> >>> Since this functionality actually has nothing to do with MPI (it's actually >>> the other way around -- MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE needs this functionality), we >>> really should rename this switch and the corresponding AC_DEFINE -- I >>> suggest: >>> >>> --enable|disable-thread-safety >>> ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY >>> >>> Of course, we need to keep the configure switch >>> "--enable|disable-mpi-threads" for backwards compatibility, so that can be >>> a synonym to --enable-thread-safety. >>> >>> See the attached patch (the biggest change is in >>> opal/config/opal_config_threads.m4). If there are no objections, I'll >>> commit this next Friday COB. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Squyres >>> jsquy...@cisco.com >>> <opal-thread-safety.diff>_______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> de...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> -- >> Brian W. Barrett >> Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software >> Sandia National Laboratories >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories
