Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Ron Brightwell wrote: If you poll only the queue that correspond to a posted receive, you only optimize micro-benchmarks, until they start using ANY_SOURCE. Note that the HPCC RandomAccess benchmark only uses MPI_ANY_SOURCE (and MPI_ANY_TAG). But HPCC RandomAccess also

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

> > Possibly, you meant to ask how one does directed polling with a wildcard > > source MPI_ANY_SOURCE. If that was your question, the answer is we > > punt. We report failure to the ULP, which reverts to the standard code > > path. > > Sorry, I meant ANY_SOURCE. If you poll only the queue

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Eugene Loh wrote: Possibly, you meant to ask how one does directed polling with a wildcard source MPI_ANY_SOURCE. If that was your question, the answer is we punt. We report failure to the ULP, which reverts to the standard code path. Sorry, I meant ANY_SOURCE. If you poll only the queue

Re: [OMPI devel] Fortran 90 Interface

Can you send the information listed here: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/help/ On Jan 21, 2009, at 5:25 PM, David Robertson wrote: Hello, I'm having a problem with MPI_COMM_WORLD in Fortran 90. I have tried with OpenMPI versions 1.2.6, 1.2.8 and 1.3. Both versions are compiled

[OMPI devel] Fortran 90 Interface

Hello, I'm having a problem with MPI_COMM_WORLD in Fortran 90. I have tried with OpenMPI versions 1.2.6, 1.2.8 and 1.3. Both versions are compiled with the PGI 8.0-2 suite. I've run the program in a debugger and with "USE mpi" and MPI_COMM_WORLD returns 'Cannot find name "MPI_COMM_WORLD"'.

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Use of ompi_proc_t flags field

Appropriate mapper components will be used, along with a file describing which nodes are in which CU etc. So it won't be so much a matter of discovery as pre-knowledge. On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: Sounds reasonable. How do you plan to discover this information? On

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Use of ompi_proc_t flags field

Sounds reasonable. How do you plan to discover this information? On Jan 21, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: What: Extend the current use of the ompi_proc_t flags field (without changing the field itself) Why: Provide more atomistic sense of locality to support new collective/BTL

[OMPI devel] VT problems on Debian

The Debian OMPI maintainers raised a few failures on some of their architectures to my attention -- it looks like there's some wonkyness on Debian on SPARC and Alpha -- scroll to the bottom of these two pages: http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?=openmpi=1.3-1=sparc=1232513504=log

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Patrick Geoffray wrote: Eugene Loh wrote: To recap: 1) The work is already done. How do you do "directed polling" with ANY_TAG ? Not sure I understand the question.  So, maybe we start by being explicitly about what we mean by "directed polling". Currently, the sm BTL

[OMPI devel] RFC: Use of ompi_proc_t flags field

What: Extend the current use of the ompi_proc_t flags field (without changing the field itself) Why: Provide more atomistic sense of locality to support new collective/BTL components Where: Add macros to define and check the various flag fields in ompi/ proc.h. Revise the

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Brian is referring to the "rdma" onesided component (OMPI osd framework) that directly invokes the BTL functions (vs. using the PML send/receive functions). The osd matching is quite different than pt2pt matching. His concern is that that model continues to work -- e.g., if the rdma osd

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Richard Graham wrote: On 1/20/09 8:53 PM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote: Eugene: you mentioned that there are other possibilities to having the BTL understand match headers, such as a callback into the PML. Have you tried this approach to see what the performance cost

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Richard Graham wrote: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency On 1/20/09 2:08 PM, "Eugene Loh" wrote: Richard Graham wrote: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency First, the performance improvements look really nice. A few questions:   - How much of an abstraction

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency

Brian Barrett wrote: I unfortunately don't have time to look in depth at the patch. But my concern is that currently (today, not at some made up time in the future, maybe), we use the BTLs for more than just MPI point-to- point. The rdma one-sided component (which was added for 1.3 and