I'm not entirely convinced this actually achieves your goals, but I
can see some potential benefits. I'm also not sure that power
consumption is that big of an issue that MPI needs to begin chasing
"power saver" modes of operation, but that can be a separate debate
some day.
I'm assuming
I believe the concern here was that we aren't entirely sure just where
you plan to do this. If we are talking about reporting errors, then
there is less concern about adding cycles. For example, we already
check to see if the IB driver has exceeded the limit on retries -
adding more logic
Ralph,
Sorry for answering on this old thread, but it seems that my answer was
blocked in the "postponed" folder.
About the if-then, I thought it was 1 cycle. I mean, if you don't break
the pipeline, i.e. use likely() or builtin_expect() or something like that
to be sure that the compiler
Hi Tom,
Yes, there is a goal in mind, and definetly not performance : we are
working on device failover, i.e when a network adapter or switch fails,
use the remaining one. We don't intend to improve performance with
multi-rail (which as you said, will not happen unless you have a DDR card
