On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "Barrett, Brian W" <bwba...@sandia.gov> wrote:
> On 7/20/13 3:33 PM, "George Bosilca" <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > >> - In terms of memory this solution provide an approach where there will >> never be an extra overhead. The ompi_proc_t is not changed, and the extra >> array of endpoints is only created if the components that share it, are all >> loaded and enabled. > > I agree. Jeff and I talked about a similar concept, but the dependent load > was an idea crusher to me. I'm not really familiar with the code being discussed here, but could you insert a small fixed-size cache in front of this in order to mitigate this second load in the most common cases? -Dave
