Thanks!
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet < gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote: > Ralph, > > i just commited r32799 in order to fix this issue. > i cmr'ed (#4923) and set the target for 1.8.4 > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > > On 2014/09/23 22:55, Ralph Castain wrote: > > Thanks! I won't have time to work on it this week, but appreciate your > effort. Also, thanks for clarifying the race condition vis 1.8 - I agree it > is not a blocker for that release. > > Ralph > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet > <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ralph, > > here is the patch i am using so far. > i will resume working on this from Wednesday (there is at least one remaining > race condition yet) unless you have the time to take care of it today. > > so far, the race condition has only been observed in real life with the > grpcomm/rcd module, and this is not the default in v1.8, so imho this is not > a blocker for v1.8.3 > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> > <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > 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> > <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> <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> > <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 listde...@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 > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@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/2014/09/15895.php > > <oobtcp2.patch>_______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@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/2014/09/15897.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@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/2014/09/15900.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/2014/09/15920.php >
