As they don't even compile why are we keeping them around?
George.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>
> iboffload and bfo are opal ignored by default. Neither exists in the
> release branch.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:02:29PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
> > While looking into a possible fix for this problem we should also
> cleanup
> > in the trunk the leftover from the OMPI_FREE_LIST.
> > $find . -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep -Hn OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT {} +
> > ./opal/mca/btl/usnic/btl_usnic_compat.h:161:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(list, (item))
> > ./ompi/mca/pml/bfo/pml_bfo_recvreq.h:89:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&mca_pml_base_recv_requests, item); \
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_task.h:149:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&cm->tasks_free, item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_task.h:206:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(task_list, item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_frag.c:107:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&device->frags_free[qp_index], item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_frag.c:146:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&device->frags_free[qp_index], item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_frag.c:208:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&iboffload->device->frags_free[qp_index],
> item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_qp_info.c:156:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&device->frags_free[qp_index], item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_collfrag.h:130:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&cm->collfrags_free, item);
> > ./ompi/mca/bcol/iboffload/bcol_iboffload_frag.h:115:
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(&cm->ml_frags_free, item);
> > I wonder how these are even compiling ...
> > George.
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Alexey,
> > This is not necessarily the fix for all cases. Most of the internal
> uses
> > of the free_list can easily accommodate to the fact that no more
> > elements are available. Based on your description of the problem I
> would
> > assume you encounter this problem once the
> > MCA_PML_OB1_RECV_REQUEST_ALLOC is called. In this particular case
> the
> > problem is that fact that we call OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT and that the
> > upper level is unable to correctly deal with the case where the
> returned
> > item is NULL. In this particular case the real fix is to use the
> > blocking version of the free_list accessor (similar to the case for
> > send) OMPI_FREE_LIST_WAIT_MT.
> > It is also possible that I misunderstood your problem. IF the
> solution
> > above doesn't work can you describe exactly where the NULL return
> of the
> > OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT is creating an issue?
> > George.
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Aleksej Ryzhih
> > <avryzh...@compcenter.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We experimented with MPI+OpenMP hybrid application
> > (MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE support level) where several threads
> submits a
> > lot of MPI_Irecv() requests simultaneously and encountered an
> > intermittent bug OMPI_ERR_TEMP_OUT_OF_RESOURCE after
> > MCA_PML_OB1_RECV_REQUEST_ALLOC() because OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT()
> > returned NULL. Investigating this bug we found that sometimes
> the
> > thread calling ompi_free_list_grow() don't have any free items in
> > LIFO list at exit because other threads retrieved all new items
> at
> > opal_atomic_lifo_pop()
> >
> > So we suggest to change OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT() as below:
> >
> >
> >
> > #define OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET_MT(fl,
> > item)
> \
> >
> >
> > {
> > \
> >
> > item = (ompi_free_list_item_t*)
> > opal_atomic_lifo_pop(&((fl)->super)); \
> >
> > if( OPAL_UNLIKELY(NULL == item) )
> > { \
> >
> > if(opal_using_threads())
> > { \
> >
> > int rc;
> > \
> >
> >
> > opal_mutex_lock(&((fl)->fl_lock));
> > \
> >
> >
> > do
> > \
> >
> > {
> > \
> >
> > rc = ompi_free_list_grow((fl),
> > (fl)->fl_num_per_alloc); \
> >
> > if( OPAL_UNLIKELY(rc != OMPI_SUCCESS))
> > break; \
> >
> >
> >
> \
> >
> > item = (ompi_free_list_item_t*)
> > opal_atomic_lifo_pop(&((fl)->super)); \
> >
> >
> > \
> >
> > } while
> > (!item);
> \
> >
> >
> > opal_mutex_unlock(&((fl)->fl_lock));
> > \
> >
> > } else
> > {
> > \
> >
> > ompi_free_list_grow((fl),
> > (fl)->fl_num_per_alloc); \
> >
> > item = (ompi_free_list_item_t*)
> > opal_atomic_lifo_pop(&((fl)->super)); \
> >
> > } /* opal_using_threads() */
> > \
> >
> > } /* NULL == item
> > */ \
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Another workaround is to increase the value of
> pml_ob1_free_list_inc
> > parameter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alexey
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/2015/09/18039.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/2015/09/18046.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/2015/09/18048.php
>
