I'd like to point out an offhand comment that I made earlier that seems to have gotten lost -- let me cite the README, because it cites it much better than I did earlier in this thread:
----- Note that for many of Open MPI's --with-<foo> options, Open MPI will, by default, search for header files and/or libraries for <foo>. If the relevant files are found, Open MPI will built support for <foo>; if they are not found, Open MPI will skip building support for <foo>. However, if you specify --with-<foo> on the configure command line and Open MPI is unable to find relevant support for <foo>, configure will assume that it was unable to provide a feature that was specifically requested and will abort so that a human can resolve out the issue. ----- Hence, if the user had specified --with-tm (even without a path), and Open MPI's configure was not able to find TM support, configure would have aborted. This --with-<foo> support is uniform across all of its options. Hence, if you want to guarantee that you have support for a specific feature, you should use --with-<foo>. I'm almost certain that we decided on this behavior back near the beginning of the Open MPI project because of conversations exactly like this (and me/others citing that writing something out at the end of configure might end up being a losing battle)... > On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Howard Pritchard <hpprit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > HI Folks, > > I like Paul's suggestion for configury summary output a lot. It would have > helped me when I was trying to deal with an oddball > one-off install of the moab/torque software on one of the non-standard front > ends at LANL. The libfabric configury has > such a summary output at the end of configure and it makes it much simpler > (for a much smaller project) to check that > you're getting what you expected. > > I still say updating the FAQ with something more precise is in order. I'll > work on that. > > Howard > > > 2016-01-25 15:20 GMT-07:00 Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov>: > Ralph, > > As a practical matter most users probably aren't going to know what to do > with anything that scrolls off their screen. > So I think dumping the ompi_info output as-is would be just "noise" to many > folks. > That is one reason I didn't just suggest doing exactly that > (cross-compilation being another) > > However, a suitably summarized output might be just the right thing. > Perhaps something compact along the lines of > MCA foo: component1 component2 component2 > MCA foobar: componentA componentB > ... > Bindings: C C++ Java Fortan(mpif.h 'use mpi') > > If this could information be generated at the end of configure, rather than > "make install", it could save folks some time spent compiling incorrectly > configured builds. > > > Another thing one might independently want to consider is having configure > warn when the required libs are present for a component but the "can compile" > test fails. > This would, for instance, catch the situation when the "libfoo" packages is > installed but the "libfoo-dev" package is not. > This approach, however, may require non-trivial changes to how all the > configure probes are performed since I don't believe this is something > autoconf has existing support for (the AC_CHECK_LIB macro is effectively a > check for the "libfoo-dev" package only). > > > Just my $0.02USD, of course. > > -Paul > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > That makes sense, Paul - what if we output effectively the ompi_info summary > of what was built at the end of the make install procedure? Then you would > have immediate feedback on the result. > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > As one who builds other people's software frequently, I have my own opinions > here. > > Above all else, is that there is no one "right" answer, but that consistency > with in a product is best. > So (within reason) the same things that work to configure module A and B > should work with C and D as well. > To use an analogy from (human) languages, I dislike "irregular verbs". > > The proposal to report (at run time) the existence of TM support on the > system (but lacking in ORTE), doesn't "feel" consistent with existing > practice. > In GASNet we *do* report at runtime if a high-speed network is present and > you are not using it. > For instance we warn if the headers were missing at configure time but we can > see the /dev entry at runtime. > However, we do that uniformly across all the networks and have done this for > years. > So, it is a *consistent* practice in that project. > > Keep It Simple Stupid is also an important one. > So, I agree with those who think the proposal to catch this at runtime is an > unnecessary complication. > > I think improving the FAQ a good idea > > I do, however, I can think of one thing that might help the "I thought I had > configured X" problem Jeff mentions. > What about a summary output at the end of configure or make? > > Right now I sometimes use something like the following: > $ grep 'bindings\.\.\. yes' configure.out > $ grep -e 'component .* can compile\.\.\. yes' configure.log > This lets me see what is going to be built. > Outputing something like this a the end of configure might encourage admins > to check for their feature X before typing "make" > The existing configury goop can easily be modified to keep a list of > configured components and language bindings. > > However, another alternative is probably easier to implement: > The last step of "make install" could print a message like > NOTICE: Your installation is complete. > NOTICE: You can run ompi_info to verify that all expected components and > language bindings have been built. > > -Paul > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > Haters gotta hate. ;-) > > Kidding aside, ok, you make valid points. So -- no tm "addition". We just > have to rely on people using functionality like "--with-tm" in the configure > line to force/ensure that tm (or whatever feature) will actually get built. > > > > On Jan 25, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > > > > I think we would be opening a real can of worms with this idea. There are > > environments, for example, that use PBSPro for one part of the system > > (e.g., IO nodes), but something else for the compute section. > > > > Personally, I'd rather follow Howard's suggestion. > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:55:20PM +0000, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > > > Hmm. I'm of split mind here. > > > > > > I can see what Howard is saying here -- adding complexity is usually a > > > bad thing. > > > > > > But we have gotten these problem reports multiple times over the years: > > > someone *thinking* that they have built with launcher support X (e.g., > > > TM, LSF), but then figuring out later that things aren't running as > > > expected, and after a bunch of work, figure out that it's because they > > > didn't build with support X. > > > > > > Gilles idea actually sounds interesting -- if the tm module detect some > > > of the sentinel PBS/TM env variables, emit a show_help() if we don't have > > > full TM support compiled in. This would actually save some users a bunch > > > of time and frustration. > > > > > > --> Keep in mind that the SLRUM launcher is different, because it's all > > > CLI-based (not API-based) and therefore we always build it (because we > > > don't have to find headers and libraries). > > > > > > FWIW, we do have precedent of having extra MCA params for users to turn > > > off warnings that they don't want to see. > > > > > > I guess the question here is: is there a valid use case for running in > > > PBS/Torque and *not* wanting to use the TM launcher? > > > > Once case comes to mind. In the case of Cray systems that unfortunately > > run Moab/Toque we can launch using either alps or torque (Howard correct > > me if I am wrong). When Sam and I originally wrote the XE support we > > used alps instead of torque. I am not entirely sure what we do now. > > > > -Nathan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/2016/01/18509.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/2016/01/18510.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/2016/01/18511.php > > > > -- > Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov > Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group > Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/2016/01/18513.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/2016/01/18514.php > > > > -- > Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov > Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group > Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/2016/01/18516.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/2016/01/18518.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
