Hi Jeff & Ralph, Thanks for the response, and sorry for the delay in my reply. Attending the developers meeting sounds like a good idea, But I will be back from my vacation only on the 15th. So I will not be able to close in on my possibilities to attend the developers meeting before that. I will keep you posted on this.
@Ralph: The wedding went really well! Thanks for asking :) Best, Vish On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com > wrote: > Vish -- > > In general, this sounds like a great idea. > > We talked about this on the call today, and it looks like it's going to > take a bit of thought into how to integrate this into OMPI. I.e., we might > have to adjust the mpool and/or allocator frameworks a bit first. > > Is there any chance that you can attend the OMPI face-to-face dev meeting > in late January? > > https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Meeting-2015-01 > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Vishwanath Venkatesan <vvenka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I have been working on an implementation for supporting the use of > MPI_Alloc_mem with our new allocator library called memkind ( > https://github.com/memkind/). The memkind library allows to allocate from > different kinds of memory where, kinds implemented within the library > enable the control of NUMA and page size features. This could be leveraged > conveniently with MPI_Alloc_mem. > > > > I was hoping to trigger the use of the memkind component by using either > an info object or an mca parameter (mpirun -np x --mca mpool memkind ). > > The modules of the mpool framework are loaded from components in the btl > framework and not in the base of mpool. But in the case of my > implementation, the component can remain independent from the btl > framework. Is there a way to introduce priority for mpool component > selection? > > > > Also, with the use of info objects in mpool_base_alloc.c, it looks like > the same code path is taken irrespective of whether the info is null or > not, as the branch conditions seem to be commented out. Could this be > un-commented or will there be a different patch for this? > > > > Please let me know, > > Thanks, > > Vish > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/2014/11/16320.php > > > -- > 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 > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/12/16408.php >
