Btw it strikes me that we could put the old libevent back as a separate 
component for comparisons. 

Sent from my PDA. No type good. 

On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:20 AM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote:

> On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:29 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> 
>> 1. Not all processes deadlock in btl_sm_add_procs. The process that setup 
>> the shared memory area, is going forward, and block later in a barrier.
> 
> Yes, I'm seeing the same thing (I didn't include all details like this in my 
> post, sorry). I was running with -np 2 on a local machine and saw vpid=0 get 
> stuck in opal_progress (because the first time through, seg_inited < 
> n_local_procs).  vpid=1 increments seg_inited and therefore doesn't enter the 
> loop that calls opal_progress(), and therefore continues on.
> 
>> 2. All other processes, loop around the opal_progress, until they got a 
>> message from all other processes. The variable used for counting is somehow 
>> updated correctly, but we still call opal_progress. I couldn't figure out is 
>> we loop more that we should, or if opal_progress doesn't return. However, 
>> both of these possibilities look very unlikely to me: the loop in the 
>> sm_add_procs is pretty straightforward, and I couldn't find any loops in 
>> opal_progress. I wonder if some of the messages get lost on the exchange.
> 
> I had this problem, too, until I tried to use padb to get stack traces.  I 
> noticed that when I ran padb, my blocked process un-blocked itself and 
> continued.  After more digging, I determined that my blocked process was, in 
> fact, blocked in poll() with an infinite timeout.  padb (or any signal at 
> all) caused it to unblock and therefore continue.
> 
>> 3. If I unblock the situation by hand, everything goes back to normal. 
>> NetPIPE runs to completion but the performances are __really__ bad. On my 
>> test machine I get around 2000Mbs, when the expected value is at least 10 
>> times more. Similar finding on the latency side, we're now at 1.65 micro-sec 
>> up from the usual 0.35 we had before.
> 
> It's a feature!
> 
> -- 
> 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

Reply via email to