Richard Graham wrote:
Within the proposed approach, a variety of things are possible. Within the specific code I've put back so far, I happen to check the unexpected list. If it has something on it, the "immediate" receive reverts to the traditional code path. If the unexpected list is empty, I proceed on to the FIFO. Again, that's just how the code works that I've put back so far to the workspace mentioned in the RFC. You can let me know why you ask and what behavior you recommend. Again, to be quite honest, a lot of my interest here is motivated by (ping-pong style) benchmarks. I feel dirty just admitting that, but then I remind myself of all the reports I see of people getting really bad latencies using OMPI. |
- 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.