Yes. I will do that once I finish preparing the ORNL collectives for the trunk. Will be 8pm at the latest.
-Nathan ________________________________________ From: devel [devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Barrett, Brian W [bwba...@sandia.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:24 AM To: Open MPI Developers Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: RFC: remove opal progress recursion depth counter Nathan - Any chance you can remove the two counters this afternoon? Brian On 12/19/13 10:01 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >I think there's no problem with removing them from the dll code -- that >stuff doesn't affect MPI application ABI. > > >On Dec 19, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwba...@sandia.gov> wrote: > >> Someone who understands the mpi debugging handles code: >> >> The opal_progress_recursion_depth_counter and >>opal_progress_thread_counter >> are both only used internally in opal_progress (for book keeping, but >> never any decisions) and are declared in ompi_mpihandles_dll.c, but then >> don't appear to be used. Is there a disadvantage to: >> >> 1) removing them from mpihandles_dll.c >> >> or, if that breaks ABI, >> >> 2) Leaving them, but not doing the bookkeeping? >> >> It's fairly heavyweight bookkeeping, so I agree with Nathan, I'd like to >> remove it. But I'd like to remove it pre-1.7.4. Which means today. >> >> Brian >> >> >> On 12/18/13 4:40 PM, "Nathan Hjelm" <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Opps, yeah. Meant 1.7.5. If people agree with this change I could >>> possibly slip it in before Friday but that is unlikely. >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:32:36PM -0800, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>> Ummmm....1.7.4 is leaving the station on Fri, Nathan, so next Tues => >>>> will have to go into 1.7.5 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 18, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What: Remove the opal_progress_recursion_depth_counter from >>>>> opal_progress. >>>>> >>>>> Why: This counter adds two atomic adds to the critical path when >>>>> OPAL_HAVE_THREADS is set (which is the case for most builds). I >>>> grepped >>>>> through ompi, orte, and opal to find where this value was being used >>>> and >>>>> did not find anything either inside or outside opal_progress. >>>>> >>>>> When: I want this change to go into 1.7.4 (if possible) so setting a >>>>> quick timeout for next Tuesday. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if there is a good reason to keep this counter and it >>>>>will >>>>> be spared. >>>>> >>>>> -Nathan Hjelm >>>>> HPC-5, LANL >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> devel mailing list >>>>> de...@open-mpi.org >>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> devel mailing list >>>> de...@open-mpi.org >>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>> >> >> >> -- >> Brian W. Barrett >> Scalable System Software Group >> 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 Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
