Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Ralph Castain
On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:33 PM, Patrick Geoffray wrote: George Bosilca wrote: I know the approach "because we can". We develop an MPI library, and we should keep it that way. Our main focus should not diverge to provide I would join George in the minority on this one. "Because we can" is

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Patrick Geoffray
George Bosilca wrote: I know the approach "because we can". We develop an MPI library, and we should keep it that way. Our main focus should not diverge to provide I would join George in the minority on this one. "Because we can" is a slippery slope, there is value in keeping things simple,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Aug 24, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Ashley Pittman wrote: > The point of b is for sysadmins (or individual developers) who want to > force there to *always* be correct MPI applications. But couldn't the sysadmin equally well write a config file to achieve the same effect should they want to?

Re: [OMPI devel] New frameworks and contribs in the trunk

2009-08-24 Thread George Bosilca
On Aug 21, 2009, at 07:33 , Ralph Castain wrote: Hi Rich On Aug 21, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: I have several questions here - since process migration is an open research question, and there is more than one way to address the issue - - Is this being implemented as a

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread George Bosilca
We spent more time over emails on this thread than the time required to write the patch. As apparently I'm the only one concerned about what we have in our code base or the only one that do not perceive the usefulness of such a feature, I belong to an ignorable minority. As long as you

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Aug 24, 2009, at 2:26 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > My point is that this is a fairly trivial-to-implement feature. It > can even be done in a way that doesn't impact performance at all > (default to compile out). It is more trivial than this: mpirun -np 2 --mca btl_tcp_rndv_eager_limit 0

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread George Bosilca
On Aug 24, 2009, at 13:25 , Jeff Squyres wrote: On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:35 AM, George Bosilca wrote: As a side note, a very similar effect can be obtained by decreasing the eager size of the BTLs to be equal to the size of the match header, which is about 24 bytes. I disagree with this

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Samuel K. Gutierrez
Hi Ashley, My understanding is that this behavior would not be enabled by default in the standard debug build. The "always convert to synchronous sends" mode would be an additional configure-time option. Samuel K. Gutierrez Ashley Pittman wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:27 -0400, Jeff

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Ashley Pittman
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:27 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote: > It's the difference between: > > a. if (0) { ... convert ... } Modern compilers will remove this code > as part of dead-code removal. > b. if (1) { ... convert ... } Modern compilers will remove the "if > (1)" and always execute the

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Aug 24, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Ashley Pittman wrote: > - compiled out > - compiled in, always convert standard send to sync send > - compiled in, use MCA parameter to determine whether to convert > standard -> sync > > And we can leave the default as "compiled out". > > Howzat? I don't

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:35 AM, George Bosilca wrote: As a side note, a very similar effect can be obtained by decreasing the eager size of the BTLs to be equal to the size of the match header, which is about 24 bytes. I disagree with this statement. ;-) We currently don't export the BTL or

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Ashley Pittman
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 10:52 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Adapting that to this RFC, perhaps something like this: > > - compiled out > - compiled in, always convert standard send to sync send > - compiled in, use MCA parameter to determine whether to convert > standard -> sync > > And we can

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Sylvain Jeaugey
For the record, I see an big interest in this. Sometimes, you have to answer calls for tender featuring applications that must work with no code change, even if the code is completely not MPI-compliant. That's sad, but true (no pun intended :-)) Sylvain On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, George Bosilca

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread George Bosilca
Do people know that there exist tools for checking MPI code correctness? Many, many tools and most of them are freely available. Personally I don't see any interest of doing this, absolutely no interest. There is basically no added value to our MPI, except for a very limited number of

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: convert send to ssend

2009-08-24 Thread Samuel K. Gutierrez
Hi Jeff, Sounds good to me. Samuel K. Gutierrez Jeff Squyres wrote: The debug builds already have quite a bit of performance overhead. It might be desirable to change this RFC to have a similar tri-state as the MPI parameter checking: - compiled out - compiled in, always check - compiled

[OMPI devel] Platform acquires HP-MPI

2009-08-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
In case you hadn't already heard: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104=/www/story/08-24-2009/0005081883= Note that Platform already owns Scali MPI. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com

Re: [OMPI devel] Improvements to "mpi_leave_pinned" behavior

2009-08-24 Thread Ashley Pittman
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 10:41 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Roland has pushed his new Linux "ummunotify" kernel upstream (i.e., > it's in his -next git branch): > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git;a=commit;h=2fadea9acc19674c07ae7a9d90758f4b9b793940 > > It's not yet