Jeff, George, Ralph
Thanks a lot for your clarifications!!
- Ananda
--- PREVIOUS MESSAGE ---
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Warning on fork() disappears if I use MPI
threads!!
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
List-Post: devel@lists.open-mpi.org
Date:
On Nov 30 2010, Ralph Castain wrote:
Here is what one IB vendor says about the issue on their web site
(redacted to protect the innocent):
"At the time of this release, the (redacted-openib) driver has issues
with buffers sharing pages when fork( ) is used. Pinned (locked in
memory) pages
On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Joshua Hursey wrote:
> Can you make a v1.7 milestone on Trac, so I can move some of my tickets?
Done.
> Some are CMRs, but a couple are defects, with fixes in development, that
> without those CMRs cannot be moved to v1.5.
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
>
> On Nov 29,
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
> I have commited all my last changes in bitbucket, including those that
> follows.
I got a checkout, and still have some problems/questions. More below.
If you do the IM thing, ping me on IM (I sent you my IDs in an off-list email).
>> Do we
On 11/30/2010 09:00 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Joshua Hursey wrote:
Can you make a v1.7 milestone on Trac, so I can move some of my tickets?
Done.
I have a question about Josh's recent ticket moves. One of them
mentions 1.5 is stablizing quickly Josh can you
Hi Jeff,
We have had some recent experience with this in an Open MPI 1.4.x
version and thought it would be useful to contribute to the discussion.
Please see below.
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
The main problem is that openib require to pin memory
On 11/30/2010 10:10 AM, Joshua Hursey wrote:
(Insert jab at the definition of 'quickly' when talking about OMPI releases)
> From the way I read Jeff's original email, it seems that we are trying to get
v1.5 stable so we can start v1.7 in the next few months (3-5). The C/R
functionality on the
Excellent points Ken; thanks!
I expanded the FAQ entry here to include these points:
http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=openfabrics#ofa-fork
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Ken Cain wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We have had some recent experience with this in an Open MPI 1.4.x version and
>
This is primarily a bug-fix release over the 1.5 release. Please test it
heavily so that we can get 1.5.1 (final) out the door before Christmas.
http://www.open-mpi.org/software/ompi/v1.5/
Thanks!
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Doron Shoham wrote:
> If only the PUT flag is set and/or the btl supports only PUT method then the
> sender will allocate a rendezvous header and will not eager send any data.
> The receiver will schedule rdma PUT(s) of the entire message.
> It is done in
How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
- prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing to me
without a prefix)
- fixed logic for terminating timestamp string
- moved all the legend logic inside "if (legend)"
On Nov 29, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 14:45:13 +0100, a écrit :
> How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
>
> - prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing to
> me without a prefix)
> - fixed logic for terminating timestamp string
> - moved all the legend logic
On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
>>
>> - prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing to
>> me without a prefix)
>> - fixed logic for terminating timestamp string
>> - moved all the legend logic
Le 30/11/2010 15:03, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>
>>> How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
>>>
>>> - prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing
>>> to me without a prefix)
>>> - fixed logic for
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> I discussed with some "random" people about the "p" prefix in physical
> mode. It's not clear whether removing it from the graphical output is a
> good idea or not. People already have a hard time trying to understand
> all this logical/physical
Le 30/11/2010 15:20, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>
>> I discussed with some "random" people about the "p" prefix in physical
>> mode. It's not clear whether removing it from the graphical output is a
>> good idea or not. People already have a hard
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Yes, adding "p" to "#2" when showing physical indexes in the graphical
> output exactly like we do for the textual output (which does not have
> the legend).
Ah, I see.
> Some colleague even want to always have "P#" or "L#" and the legend to
>
Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting language of
choice), but I could probably be convinced to look at python as well.
(this would be for 1.2 at the earliest -- definitely not for 1.1)
--
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 17:29:15 +0100, a écrit :
> Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
I'd say it's welcome, as it'd easily bring bindings for other languages
as well. I'm unsure how our pointers in the hwloc_obj_t structure will
nicely map,
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
>
> I'd say it's welcome, as it'd easily bring bindings for other languages
> as well. I'm unsure how our pointers in the hwloc_obj_t structure will
> nicely
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Guy Streeter wrote:
>> Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for
>> hwloc? I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting
>> language of choice), but I could probably be convinced to look at python as
>> well.
>
>
Guy Streeter, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 17:48:56 +0100, a écrit :
> On 11/30/2010 10:07 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for
> >hwloc? I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting
> >language of choice), but I could
On 11/30/2010 10:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Guy Streeter wrote:
Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting language of
choice), but I could probably be convinced
On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Guy Streeter wrote:
> I am doing this manually. I think SWIG works fine for simple interfaces, but
> this is pretty complicated.
You might be right. This was simply an excuse for me to explore SWIG; I have
no prior experience with it. :-)
--
Jeff Squyres
bgog...@osl.iu.edu, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 18:22:29 +0100, a écrit :
> 1) NO_PCI shows nothing
>
> And I wonder if we should make (1) the default for "backward compatibility".
Possibly, yes.
(but probably not in lstopo)
Samuel
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.1rc4r2871
Start time: Tue Nov 30 21:03:14 EST 2010
End time: Tue Nov 30 21:05:23 EST 2010
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
26 matches
Mail list logo
