On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:44 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Excellent. Seems like several people have thought of this at the same > time (I was pinged about this by the IB vendors). > > I know that others on the team have more experience in this area than I > do, so I personally welcome all information. I've read a few papers on > the topic (general/simplified consensus: memory and process affinity is > good), but would appreciate any pointers to more material. > > After the theory, however, we need to decide on an implementation > strategy. As Rich mentioned, we can do this all via MCA parameters, or > perhaps via MPI_Info or MPI attributes. Although I'm not sure how much > of this can be set ahead of time and what needs to be done on a > per-thread basis, I'm assuming that each thread will need to make some > kind of function call (if MPI is going to handle it, then it will need > to be an MPI function call that triggers some magic under the covers). > > Any advice here from the Open MP community would also be appreciated... > Please keep in mind we need this to work for both MPI+OpenMP and MPI +pthread hybrid apps.
- Matt > > On Jul 18, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Edgar Gabriel wrote: > > > We have currently Barbara Chapman from the University of Houston as a > > guest scientist here at Stuttgart. Most of you might now, that Barbara > > is working on compiler design and OpenMP issues. This afternoon she > > dropped in my office and asked me, whether the Open MPI group has > > thought/discussed processor affinity issues up to now (which we just > > did > > :-) ). > > > > Anyway, I just wanted to point out, that various people from the OpenMP > > community have been working/are still working on this issue, and that > > it > > might be interesting to exchange information and maybe coordinate the > > approaches. I cc'ed Barbara therefore also on this email... >
