en you want to initialize
>>> for big mailboxes (IBer's can think many large buffers posted as RX WQEs).
>>> But for very large jobs, with possibly highly connected communication
>>> pattern,
>>> you want very small mailboxes.
>>>
>>> How
s, then you want to initialize
> > for big mailboxes (IBer's can think many large buffers posted as RX WQEs).
> > But for very large jobs, with possibly highly connected communication
> > pattern,
> > you want very small mailboxes.
> >
> > Howard
> >
&g
bly highly connected communication pattern,
> you want very small mailboxes.
>
> Howard
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of George Bosilca
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:09 AM
> To: Open MPI Developers
>
I do not like the fact that add_procs is called with every proc in the
MPI_COMM_WORLD. That needs to change, so, I will not rely on the number
of procs being added being the same as the world or universe size.
-Nathan
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:22:00AM -0600, George Bosilca wrote:
>I definiti
elopers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: job size info in OPAL
What is your definition of "global job size"?
George.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:06 , Pritchard Jr., Howard wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I think given the way we want to use the btl's in lower levels like
> opal,
I definitively think you misunderstood this scope of this RFC. The information
that is so important to you to configure the mailbox size is available to you
when you need it. This information is made available by the PML through the
call to add_procs, which comes with all the procs in the MPI_CO
s add in a hack to probe the apps placement info file and
> > scale the smsg blocks by number of nodes rather than number of ranks.
> >
> > Howard
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of
ever that can be done in ugni for now.
>> I can always add in a hack to probe the apps placement info file and
>> scale the smsg blocks by number of nodes rather than number of ranks.
>>
>> Howard
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: devel
l-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Hjelm
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:58 AM
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: job size info in OPAL
>
>
> +2^1000
>
> This information is absolutely necessary at this point. If someone has a
> bet
des rather than number of ranks.
Howard
-Original Message-
From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Hjelm
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:58 AM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: job size info in OPAL
+2^1000
This information is absolutely
+2^1000
This information is absolutely necessary at this point. If someone has a
better solution they can provide it as an alternative RFC. Until then
this is how it should be done... Otherwise we loose uGNI support on the
trunk. Because we ARE NOT going to remove the mailbox size optimizatio
On Jul 30, 2014, at 5:49 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 20:37 , Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 5:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 18:00 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
>>> wrote:
>>>
WHAT: Should we make the job size (i.e.,
On Jul 30, 2014, at 20:37 , Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 5:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 18:00 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> WHAT: Should we make the job size (i.e., initial number of procs) available
>>> in OPAL?
>>>
>>> WHY: At l
On Jul 30, 2014, at 5:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 18:00 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
>
>> WHAT: Should we make the job size (i.e., initial number of procs) available
>> in OPAL?
>>
>> WHY: At least 2 BTLs are using this info (*more below)
>>
>> WHERE: usnic
On Jul 30, 2014, at 18:00 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> WHAT: Should we make the job size (i.e., initial number of procs) available
> in OPAL?
>
> WHY: At least 2 BTLs are using this info (*more below)
>
> WHERE: usnic and ugni
>
> TIMEOUT: there's already been some inflammatory emails
WHAT: Should we make the job size (i.e., initial number of procs) available in
OPAL?
WHY: At least 2 BTLs are using this info (*more below)
WHERE: usnic and ugni
TIMEOUT: there's already been some inflammatory emails about this; let's
discuss next Tuesday on the teleconf: Tue, 5 Aug 2014
MORE
16 matches
Mail list logo
