Don,
I think we can do something slightly different that will satisfy
everybody.
How about a solution where each BTL will define a limit where a
message will never be shared with another BTL? We can have two such
limits, one for the send protocol and one for the RMA (it will apply
either to PUT or GET operations based on the BTL support and PML
decision).
george.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:01 , Don Kerr wrote:
On 10/07/09 13:52, George Bosilca wrote:
Don,
The problem is that a particular BTL doesn't have the knowledge
about the other selected BTL, so allowing the BTLs to set this
limit is not as easy as it sound. However, in the case two
identical BTLs are selected and that they are the only ones, this
clearly is a better approach.
If this parameter is set at the PML level, I can't imagine how we
figure out the correct value depending on the BTLs.
I see this as a pretty strong restriction. How do we know we set a
value that make sense?
OK, I now see why setting at btl level is difficult. And for the
case of multiple btls which are also different component types,
however unlikely that is, a pml setting will not be optimal for both.
-DON
george.
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:19 , Don Kerr wrote:
George,
Were you suggesting that the proposed new parameter
"max_rdma_single_rget" be set by the individual btls similar to
"btl_eager_limit"? Seems to me to that is the better approach if
I am to move forward with this.
-DON
On 10/06/09 11:14, Don Kerr wrote:
I agree there is probably a larger issue here and yes this is
somewhat specific but where as OB1 appears to have multiple
protocols depending on the capabilities of the BTLs I would not
characterize as an IB centric problem. Maybe OB1 RDMA problem.
There is a clear benefit from modifying this specific case. Do
you think its not worth making incremental improvements while
also attacking a potential bigger issue?
-DON
On 10/06/09 10:52, George Bosilca wrote:
Don,
This seems a very IB centric problem (and solution) going up in
the PML. Moreover, I noticed that independent on the BTL we have
some problems with the multi-rail performance. As an example on
a cluster with 3 GB cards we get the same performance is I
enable 2 or 3. Didn't had time to look into the details, but
this might be a more general problem.
george.
On Oct 6, 2009, at 09:51 , Don Kerr wrote:
I intend to make the change suggested in this ticket to the
trunk. The change does not impact single rail, tested with
openib btl, case and does improve dual rail case. Since it does
involve performance and I am adding a OB1 mca parameter just
wanted to check if anyone was interested or had an issue with
it before I committed the change.
-DON
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
