OK, I am putting it back.
> -----Original Message----- > From: terry.don...@sun.com [mailto:terry.don...@sun.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:59 PM > To: Open MPI Developers > Cc: Lenny Verkhovsky; Sharon Melamed > Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RMAPS rank_file component patch and > modifications for review > > Jeff Squyres wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Lenny Verkhovsky wrote: > > > >>> - I don't think we can delete the MCA param ompi_paffinity_alone; it > >>> exists in the v1.2 series and has historical precedent. > >>> > >> It will not be deleted, > >> It will just use the same infrastructure ( slot_list parameter and > >> opal_base functions ). It will be transparent for the user. > >> > >> User have 3 ways to setup it > >> 1. mca opal_paffinity_alone 1 > >> This will set paffinity as it did before > >> 2. mca opal_paffinity_slot_list "slot_list" > >> Used to define slots that will be used for all ranks on all > >> nodes. > >> 3. mca rmaps_rank_file_path rankfile > >> Assigning ranks to CPUs according to the file > >> > > > > > > I don't see the MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone" anymore: > > > > ----- > > [4:54] svbu-mpi:~/svn/ompi2 % ompi_info --param all all | grep > > paffinity_alone > > MCA opal: parameter "opal_paffinity_alone" (current > > value: "0") > > [4:54] svbu-mpi:~/svn/ompi2 % > > ----- > > > > My point is that I don't think we should delete this parameter; there > > is historical precedence for it (and it has been documented on the web > > page for a long, long time). Perhaps it can now simply be a synonym > > for opal_paffinity_alone (registered in the MPI layer, not opal). > > > > > I agree with Jeff on the above. This would cause a lot of busy work for > our customers and internal setups. > > --td
