My comment here is that one will want different types of modex capabilities,
depending on the type of system being targeted, so the instantiation of an
interface needs to accommodate this, regardless of where the interface sits.
When you have order several hundred K end points, like large
What: hide btl segment keys from PML/OSC code.
Why: As it stands new BTLs with larger segment keys (smcuda for example)
require changes in both OSC/rdma as well as the PMLs. This RFC makes will make
changes in segment keys transparent to all btl users.
When: The changes are very
>
> We currently block on exchange of contact information for the BTL's when we
> perform an all-to-all operation we term the "modex".
Do we have to do all-to-all or allgather ? allgather should be enough ...
> At the end of that operation, each process constructs a list of information
> for
?
I'm talking about how to implement it, not what level holds the interface.
Besides, "pineapple" hit a roadblock during the call and is a totally separate
discussion.
On Jun 13, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Richard Graham wrote:
> I would suggest exposing modex at the pineapple level, and not tie
George raised something during this morning's call that I wanted to follow-up
on relating to improving our modex operation. I've been playing with an
approach that sounded similar to what he suggested, and perhaps we could pursue
it in accordance with moving the BTL's to OPAL.
We currently
