Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
Gleb,
in the scenario which you describe in the comment to the patch, what
should happen is, that the communicator with the cid which started
already the allreduce will basically 'hang' until the other
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:30:53AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:54:25AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
>>> We don't want to prevent two thread from entering the code is same time.
>>> The algorithm you cited
On Sep 11, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:54:25AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
We don't want to prevent two thread from entering the code is same
time.
The algorithm you cited support this case. There is only one
moment that is
Are you sure it support
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
> Gleb,
>
> in the scenario which you describe in the comment to the patch, what
> should happen is, that the communicator with the cid which started
> already the allreduce will basically 'hang' until the other processes
> 'allow'
Gleb,
in the scenario which you describe in the comment to the patch, what
should happen is, that the communicator with the cid which started
already the allreduce will basically 'hang' until the other processes
'allow' the lower cids to continue. It should basically be blocked in
the
We don't want to prevent two thread from entering the code is same
time. The algorithm you cited support this case. There is only one
moment that is critical. The local selection of the next available
cid. And this is what we try to protect there. If after the first
run, the collective
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:14:30AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
> Gleb,
>
> This patch is not correct. The code preventing the registration of the same
> communicator twice is later in the code (same file in the function
> ompi_comm_register_cid line 326). Once the function
Gleb,
This patch is not correct. The code preventing the registration of
the same communicator twice is later in the code (same file in the
function ompi_comm_register_cid line 326). Once the function
ompi_comm_register_cid is called, we know that each communicator only
handle one
