git blame reports that the gettime patch is in master for the last 1 1/2 years (Nov 2014). Here is an untested patch (cherrypicked 00300f464d plus few changes).
george. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet < gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dave, > > fwiw, on v1.10, we likely use the number of cycles / cpu freq. > > see opal_sys_timer_get_cycles in > https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi-release/blob/v1.10/opal/include/opal/sys/amd64/timer.h > > I cannot remember whether this is a monotonic timer. > (e.g. MPI_Wtime() invoked on a given cpu is always lower or equal to > MPI_Wtime() invoked later and on *any* cpu) > that could be the reason why we moved to clock_gettime() in master. > > George, > do you have a more precise recollection ? > shall we backport the us of clock_gettime() into v1.10 ? > > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016, Dave Love <d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >> > Are you talking about different source? >> >> On further investigation it looks so -- the development source does >> feature clock_gettime, but the release doesn't. Back to LD_PRELOAD... >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> us...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2016/04/28897.php >> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2016/04/28898.php >
00300f464d.patch
Description: Binary data
