Jumping in late (travelling this morning). I think this is the right
answer :).
Brian
--
Brian Barrett
There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to
throw yourself at the ground and miss.
On May 8, 2009, at 9:45, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
I think that's the way to go then - it also follows our "the user is
always right - even when they are wrong" philosophy. I'll probably
have to draw on others to help ensure that the paffinity modules all
report appropriately.
Think I have enough now to start on this - probably middle of next
week.
Thanks!
On May 8, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Actually, I was wondering (hot tub thought for the night) if the
paffinity system can't just tell us if the proc has been bound or
not?
That would remove the need for YAP (i.e., yet another param).
Yes, it can.
What it can't tell, though, is who set it. So a user may have
overridden the paffinity after main() starts but before MPI_INIT is
invoked.
But perhaps that's not a crime -- users can override the paffinity
at their own risk (we actually have no way to preventing them from
doing so). So perhaps just checking if affinity is already set is
a "good enough" mechanism for the MPI_INIT-set-paffinity logic to
determine whether it should set affinity itself or not.
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
