On Mar 15 2011, George Bosilca wrote:
Nobody challenged your statements about threading or about the
correctness of the POSIX standard. However, such concerns are better
voiced on forums related to that specific subject, where they have a
chance to be taken into account by people who understa
On Mar 12, 2011, at 03:51 , N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Mar 12 2011, George Bosilca wrote:
>
>> Removing thread support is _NOT_ an option
>> (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid).
>>
>> Unlike the usual claims on this mailing list, MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE had been
>> fully
On Mar 12 2011, George Bosilca wrote:
Removing thread support is _NOT_ an option
(https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid).
Unlike the usual claims on this mailing list, MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE had
been fully supported for several BTLs in Open MPI
(http://www.springerlink.co
Removing thread support is _NOT_ an option
(https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid).
Unlike the usual claims on this mailing list, MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE had been
fully supported for several BTLs in Open MPI
(http://www.springerlink.com/content/lmh1144p51317313/). The long te
On Mar 11 2011, Eugene Loh wrote:
The idea would be to hardwire support for MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE to be off,
just as we have done for progress threads. Threads might still be used
for other purposes -- e.g., ORTE, openib async thread, etc.
That's what I was assuming, too. Threads used behind
The idea would be to hardwire support for MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE to be off,
just as we have done for progress threads. Threads might still be used
for other purposes -- e.g., ORTE, openib async thread, etc.
Ralph Castain wrote:
Can't speak to the MPI layer, but you definitely cannot hardwire th
Can't speak to the MPI layer, but you definitely cannot hardwire thread support
to "off" for ORTE.
On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:57 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:23 , Eugene Loh wrote:
>
>> Any comments on this?
>
> Good luck?
>
> george.
>
>
>> We wanted to clean up MPI_
On Mar 10 2011, Eugene Loh wrote:
Any comments on this? We wanted to clean up MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE
support in the trunk and port these changes back to 1.5.x, but it's
unclear to me what our expectations should be about any
MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE test succeeding. How do we assess (test) our
chan
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:23 , Eugene Loh wrote:
> Any comments on this?
Good luck?
george.
> We wanted to clean up MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE support in the trunk and port
> these changes back to 1.5.x, but it's unclear to me what our expectations
> should be about any MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE test su
If you're trying to make THREAD_MULTIPLE support better, I think that would be
great. If your simple test seems to fail over TCP with THREAD_MULTIPLE, then I
think it's pretty clear that it's broken / needs debugging.
Specifically: if we could have higher confidence in at least a few BTLs'
sup
Any comments on this? We wanted to clean up MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE
support in the trunk and port these changes back to 1.5.x, but it's
unclear to me what our expectations should be about any
MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE test succeeding. How do we assess (test) our
changes? Or, should we just hardwire th
11 matches
Mail list logo
