Gilles - please let me know if/when you think you'll do this. I'm debating about adding it to 1.8.3, but don't want to delay that release too long. Alternatively, I can take care of it if you don't have time (I'm asking if you can do it solely because you have the reproducer).
On Sep 21, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > Sounds fine with me - please go ahead, and thanks > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet > <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the pointer George ! >> >> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 5:46 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> Or copy the handshake protocol design of the TCP BTL... >> >> >> the main difference between oob/tcp and btl/tcp is the way we resolve the >> situation in which two processes send their first message to each other at >> the same time. >> >> in oob/tcp, all (e.g. one or two) sockets are closed and the higher vpid is >> directed to retry establishing a connection. >> >> in btl/tcp, the useless socket is closed (e.g. the one that was connect-ed >> on the lower vpid and the one that was accept-ed on the higher vpid. >> >> >> my first impression is that oob/tcp is un-necessary complex and it should >> use the simpler and most efficient protocol of btl/tcp. >> that being said, this conclusion could be too naive and for some good >> reasons i ignore, the btl/tcp handshake protocol might not be a good fit for >> oob/tcp. >> >> any thoughts ? >> >> i will revamp oob/tcp in order to use the same btl/tcp handshake protocol >> from tomorrow unless indicated otherwise >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gilles >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/09/15885.php >
