Ron Brightwell wrote:
But HPCC RandomAccess also just uses non-blocking receives. So, it's kind of outside the scope of the original ideas here (bypassing the PML receive-request data structure).If you poll only the queue that correspond to a posted receive, you only optimize micro-benchmarks, until they start using ANY_SOURCE.Note that the HPCC RandomAccess benchmark only uses MPI_ANY_SOURCE (and MPI_ANY_TAG). It's possibly not even a poster child for the single-queue idea either. Single queue probably shines best when you have to poll all connections for a few messages. In contrast, RandomAccess (I think) loads all connections up randomly (pseudo-evenly). |
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Brian Barrett
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Jeff Squyres
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Richard Graham
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Patrick Geoffray
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Patrick Geoffray
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Ron Brightwell
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Richard Graham
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Late... Richard Graham
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Richard Graham
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Eugene Loh
- Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: sm Latency Graham, Richard L.