On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Nathan Hjelm wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:33:31PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote: > > The solution you propose here is definitively not OK. It is 1) ugly and 2) > > break the separation barrier that we hold dear. > > Which is why I asked :) > > > Regarding your other suggestion I don’t see any reasons not to call the > > delete_proc on MPI_COMM_WORLD as the last action we do before tearing down > > everything else. > > I spoke too soon. It looks like we *are* calling del_procs but I am not > seeing the call reach the bml.... I will try and track this down.
/bml/btl/ .. I see what is happening. The proc reference counts are all larger than 1 when we call del_procs: [1,2]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b83190 with reference count 5 [1,1]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b83180 with reference count 5 [1,2]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b832b0 with reference count 5 [1,1]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b832a0 with reference count 7 [1,2]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b83360 with reference count 7 [1,1]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b833a0 with reference count 5 [1,0]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b83190 with reference count 7 [1,0]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b83300 with reference count 5 [1,0]<stderr>:Deleting proc 0x7b833b0 with reference count 5 I will track that down. -Nathan
pgp8zMhY4lf_f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
