Interesting. The only difference I see is the FC11 - I haven't seen anyone
running on that OS yet. I wonder if that is the source of the trouble? Do we
know that our code works on that one? I know we had problems in the past with
FC9, for example, that required fixes.
Also, what compiler are you using? I wonder if there is some optimization issue
here, or some weird interaction between FC11 and the compiler.
On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> I'm also puzzled :-)
>
> Here is what I did today :
> * download the latest nightly build (openmpi-1.7a1r22241)
> * untar it
> * patch it with my "ORTE_RELAY_DELAY" patch
> * build it directly on the cluster (running FC11) with :
> ./configure --platform=contrib/platform/lanl/tlcc/debug-nopanasas
> --prefix=<some path in my home>
> make && make install
>
> * deactivate oob_tcp_if_include=ib0 in openmpi-mca-params.conf (IPoIB is
> broken on my machine) and run with :
> salloc -N 10 mpirun ./helloworld
>
> And .. still the same behaviour : ok by default, deadlock with the typical
> stack when setting ORTE_RELAY_DELAY to 1.
>
> About my previous e-mail, I was wrong about all components having a 0
> priority : it was based on default parameters reported by "ompi_info -a |
> grep routed". It seems that the truth is not always in ompi_info ...
>
> Sylvain
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>
>>> I tried with the trunk and it makes no difference for me.
>>
>> Strange
>>
>>>
>>> Looking at potential differences, I found out something strange. The bug
>>> may have something to do with the "routed" framework. I can reproduce the
>>> bug with binomial and direct, but not with cm and linear (you disabled the
>>> build of the latest in your configure options -- why ?).
>>
>> You won't with cm because there is no relay. Likewise, direct doesn't have a
>> relay - so I'm really puzzled how you can see this behavior when using the
>> direct component???
>>
>> I disable components in my build to save memory. Every component we open
>> costs us memory that may or may not be recoverable during the course of
>> execution.
>>
>>>
>>> Btw, all components have a 0 priority and none is defined to be the default
>>> component. Which one is the default then ? binomial (as the first in
>>> alphabetical order) ?
>>
>> I believe you must have a severely corrupted version of the code. The
>> binomial component has priority 70 so it will be selected as the default.
>>
>> Linear has priority 40, though it will only be selected if you say ^binomial.
>>
>> CM and radix have special selection code in them so they will only be
>> selected when specified.
>>
>> Direct and slave have priority 0 to ensure they will only be selected when
>> specified
>>
>>>
>>> Can you check which one you are using and try with binomial explicitely
>>> chosen ?
>>
>> I am using binomial for all my tests
>>
>>> From what you are describing, I think you either have a corrupted copy of
>>> the code, are picking up mis-matched versions, or something strange as your
>>> experiences don't match what anyone else is seeing.
>>
>> Remember, the phase you are discussing here has nothing to do with the
>> native launch environment. This is dealing with the relative timing of the
>> application launch versus relaying the launch message itself - i.e., the
>> daemons are already up and running before any of this starts. Thus, this
>> "problem" has nothing to do with how we launch the daemons. So, if it truly
>> were a problem in the code, we would see it on every environment - torque,
>> slurm, ssh, etc.
>>
>> We routinely launch jobs spanning hundreds to thousands of nodes without
>> problem. If this timing problem was as you have identified, then we would
>> see this constantly. Yet nobody is seeing it, and I cannot reproduce it even
>> with your reproducer.
>>
>> I honestly don't know what to suggest at this point. Any chance you are
>> picking up mis-matched OMPI versions are your backend nodes or something?
>> Tried fresh checkouts of the code? Is this a code base you have modified, or
>> are you seeing this with the "stock" code from the repo?
>>
>> Just fishing at this point - can't find anything wrong! :-/
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time,
>>> Sylvain
>>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sylvain
>>>>
>>>> Well, I hate to tell you this, but I cannot reproduce the "bug" even with
>>>> this code in ORTE no matter what value of ORTE_RELAY_DELAY I use. The
>>>> system runs really slow as I increase the delay, but it completes the job
>>>> just fine. I ran jobs across 16 nodes on a slurm machine, 1-4 ppn, a
>>>> "hello world" app that calls MPI_Init immediately upon execution.
>>>>
>>>> So I have to conclude this is a problem in your setup/config. Are you sure
>>>> you didn't --enable-progress-threads?? That is the only way I can recreate
>>>> this behavior.
>>>>
>>>> I plan to modify the relay/message processing method anyway to clean it
>>>> up. But there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the current code.
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 20, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your efforts. I will look at our configuration and see how it
>>>>> may differ from ours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a patch which helps reproducing the bug even with a small number
>>>>> of nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> diff -r b622b9e8f1ac orte/orted/orted_comm.c
>>>>> --- a/orte/orted/orted_comm.c Wed Nov 18 09:27:55 2009 +0100
>>>>> +++ b/orte/orted/orted_comm.c Fri Nov 20 14:47:39 2009 +0100
>>>>> @@ -126,6 +126,13 @@
>>>>> ORTE_ERROR_LOG(ret);
>>>>> goto CLEANUP;
>>>>> }
>>>>> + { /* Add delay to reproduce bug */
>>>>> + char * str = getenv("ORTE_RELAY_DELAY");
>>>>> + int sec = str ? atoi(str) : 0;
>>>>> + if (sec) {
>>>>> + sleep(sec);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> CLEANUP:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just set ORTE_RELAY_DELAY to 1 (second) and you should reproduce the bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> During our experiments, the bug disappeared when we added a delay before
>>>>> calling MPI_Init. So, configurations where processes are launched slowly
>>>>> or take some time before MPI_Init should be immune to this bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> We usually reproduce the bug with one ppn (faster to spawn).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sylvain
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've spent several hours trying to replicate the behavior you described
>>>>>> on clusters up to a couple of hundred nodes (all running slurm), without
>>>>>> success. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is a
>>>>>> configuration issue as opposed to a code issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have enclosed the platform file I use below. Could you compare it to
>>>>>> your configuration? I'm wondering if there is something critical about
>>>>>> the config that may be causing the problem (perhaps we have a problem in
>>>>>> our default configuration).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, is there anything else you can tell us about your configuration?
>>>>>> How many ppn triggers it, or do you always get the behavior every time
>>>>>> you launch over a certain number of nodes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meantime, I will look into this further. I am going to introduce a "slow
>>>>>> down" param that will force the situation you encountered - i.e., will
>>>>>> ensure that the relay is still being sent when the daemon receives the
>>>>>> first collective input. We can then use that to try and force
>>>>>> replication of the behavior you are encountering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> enable_dlopen=no
>>>>>> enable_pty_support=no
>>>>>> with_blcr=no
>>>>>> with_openib=yes
>>>>>> with_memory_manager=no
>>>>>> enable_mem_debug=yes
>>>>>> enable_mem_profile=no
>>>>>> enable_debug_symbols=yes
>>>>>> enable_binaries=yes
>>>>>> with_devel_headers=yes
>>>>>> enable_heterogeneous=no
>>>>>> enable_picky=yes
>>>>>> enable_debug=yes
>>>>>> enable_shared=yes
>>>>>> enable_static=yes
>>>>>> with_slurm=yes
>>>>>> enable_contrib_no_build=libnbc,vt
>>>>>> enable_visibility=yes
>>>>>> enable_memchecker=no
>>>>>> enable_ipv6=no
>>>>>> enable_mpi_f77=no
>>>>>> enable_mpi_f90=no
>>>>>> enable_mpi_cxx=no
>>>>>> enable_mpi_cxx_seek=no
>>>>>> enable_mca_no_build=pml-dr,pml-crcp2,crcp
>>>>>> enable_io_romio=no
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you Ralph for this precious help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I setup a quick-and-dirty patch basically postponing process_msg
>>>>>>>> (hence daemon_collective) until the launch is done. In process_msg, I
>>>>>>>> therefore requeue a process_msg handler and return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is basically the idea I proposed, just done in a slightly
>>>>>>> different place
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this "all-must-be-non-blocking-and-done-through-opal_progress"
>>>>>>>> algorithm, I don't think that blocking calls like the one in
>>>>>>>> daemon_collective should be allowed. This also applies to the blocking
>>>>>>>> one in send_relay. [Well, actually, one is okay, 2 may lead to
>>>>>>>> interlocking.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, that would be problematic - you will find "progressed_wait" used
>>>>>>> repeatedly in the code. Removing them all would take a -lot- of effort
>>>>>>> and a major rewrite. I'm not yet convinced it is required. There may be
>>>>>>> something strange in how you are setup, or your cluster - like I said,
>>>>>>> this is the first report of a problem we have had, and people with much
>>>>>>> bigger slurm clusters have been running this code every day for over a
>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have time doing a nicer patch, it would be great and I would be
>>>>>>>> happy to test it. Otherwise, I will try to implement your idea
>>>>>>>> properly next week (with my limited knowledge of orted).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way is fine - I'll see if I can get to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the record, here is the patch I'm currently testing at large scale
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff -r ec68298b3169 -r b622b9e8f1ac
>>>>>>>> orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c
>>>>>>>> --- a/orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c Mon Nov 09 13:29:16
>>>>>>>> 2009 +0100
>>>>>>>> +++ b/orte/mca/grpcomm/bad/grpcomm_bad_module.c Wed Nov 18 09:27:55
>>>>>>>> 2009 +0100
>>>>>>>> @@ -687,14 +687,6 @@
>>>>>>>> opal_list_append(&orte_local_jobdata, &jobdat->super);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - /* it may be possible to get here prior to having actually
>>>>>>>> finished processing our
>>>>>>>> - * local launch msg due to the race condition between different
>>>>>>>> nodes and when
>>>>>>>> - * they start their individual procs. Hence, we have to first
>>>>>>>> ensure that we
>>>>>>>> - * -have- finished processing the launch msg, or else we won't
>>>>>>>> know whether
>>>>>>>> - * or not to wait before sending this on
>>>>>>>> - */
>>>>>>>> - ORTE_PROGRESSED_WAIT(jobdat->launch_msg_processed, 0, 1);
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> /* unpack the collective type */
>>>>>>>> n = 1;
>>>>>>>> if (ORTE_SUCCESS != (rc = opal_dss.unpack(data,
>>>>>>>> &jobdat->collective_type, &n, ORTE_GRPCOMM_COLL_T))) {
>>>>>>>> @@ -894,6 +886,28 @@
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> proc = &mev->sender;
>>>>>>>> buf = mev->buffer;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + jobdat = NULL;
>>>>>>>> + for (item = opal_list_get_first(&orte_local_jobdata);
>>>>>>>> + item != opal_list_get_end(&orte_local_jobdata);
>>>>>>>> + item = opal_list_get_next(item)) {
>>>>>>>> + jobdat = (orte_odls_job_t*)item;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + /* is this the specified job? */
>>>>>>>> + if (jobdat->jobid == proc->jobid) {
>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>> + if (NULL == jobdat || jobdat->launch_msg_processed != 1) {
>>>>>>>> + /* it may be possible to get here prior to having actually
>>>>>>>> finished processing our
>>>>>>>> + * local launch msg due to the race condition between
>>>>>>>> different nodes and when
>>>>>>>> + * they start their individual procs. Hence, we have to first
>>>>>>>> ensure that we
>>>>>>>> + * -have- finished processing the launch msg. Requeue this
>>>>>>>> event until it is done.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> + int tag = &mev->tag;
>>>>>>>> + ORTE_MESSAGE_EVENT(proc, buf, tag, process_msg);
>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /* is the sender a local proc, or a daemon relaying the collective? */
>>>>>>>> if (ORTE_PROC_MY_NAME->jobid == proc->jobid) {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very strange. As I said, we routinely launch jobs spanning several
>>>>>>>>> hundred nodes without problem. You can see the platform files for
>>>>>>>>> that setup in contrib/platform/lanl/tlcc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That said, it is always possible you are hitting some kind of race
>>>>>>>>> condition we don't hit. In looking at the code, one possibility would
>>>>>>>>> be to make all the communications flow through the daemon cmd
>>>>>>>>> processor in orte/orted_comm.c. This is the way it used to work until
>>>>>>>>> I reorganized the code a year ago for other reasons that never
>>>>>>>>> materialized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the daemon collective has to wait until the local
>>>>>>>>> launch cmd has been completely processed so it can know whether or
>>>>>>>>> not to wait for contributions from local procs before sending along
>>>>>>>>> the collective message, so this kinda limits our options.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> About the only other thing you could do would be to not send the
>>>>>>>>> relay at all until -after- processing the local launch cmd. You can
>>>>>>>>> then remove the "wait" in the daemon collective as you will know how
>>>>>>>>> many local procs are involved, if any.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I used to do it that way and it guarantees it will work. The negative
>>>>>>>>> is that we lose some launch speed as the next nodes in the tree don't
>>>>>>>>> get the launch message until this node finishes launching all its
>>>>>>>>> procs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The way around that, of course, would be to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. process the launch message, thus extracting the number of any
>>>>>>>>> local procs and setting up all data structures...but do -not- launch
>>>>>>>>> the procs at this time (as this is what takes all the time)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. send the relay - the daemon collective can now proceed without a
>>>>>>>>> "wait" in it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. now launch the local procs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be a fairly simple reorganization of the code in the
>>>>>>>>> orte/mca/odls area. I can do it this weekend if you like, or you can
>>>>>>>>> do it - either way is fine, but if you do it, please contribute it
>>>>>>>>> back to the trunk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would say I use the default settings, i.e. I don't set anything
>>>>>>>>>> "special" at configure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm launching my processes with SLURM (salloc + mpirun).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How did you configure OMPI?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What launch mechanism are you using - ssh?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so, and I'm not doing it explicitely at least. How
>>>>>>>>>>>> do I know ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We routinely launch across thousands of nodes without a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem...I have never seen it stick in this fashion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you build and/or are using ORTE threaded by any chance? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, that definitely won't work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently experiencing problems at launch on the 1.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch on relatively large number of nodes (at least 80). Some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes are not spawned and orted processes are deadlocked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When MPI processes are calling MPI_Init before send_relay is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete, the send_relay function and the daemon_collective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function are doing a nice interlock :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the scenario :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> send_relay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performs the send tree :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orte_rml_oob_send_buffer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orte_rml_oob_send
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_wait_condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waiting on completion from send thus calling opal_progress()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_progress()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since a collective request arrived from the network, entered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daemon_collective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, daemon_collective is waiting for the job to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialized (wait on jobdat->launch_msg_processed) before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing, thus calling :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_progress()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this time, the send may complete, but since we will never go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to orte_rml_oob_send, we will never perform the launch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (setting jobdat->launch_msg_processed to 1).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may try to solve the bug (this is quite a top priority problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for me), but maybe people who are more familiar with orted than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am may propose a nice and clean solution ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who like real (and complete) gdb stacks, here they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #0 0x0000003b7fed4f38 in poll () from /lib64/libc.so.6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #1 0x00007fd0de5d861a in poll_dispatch (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arg=0x91a4b0, tv=0x7fff0d977880) at poll.c:167
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #2 0x00007fd0de5d586f in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:823
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #3 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #4 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #5 0x00007fd0dd340a02 in daemon_collective (sender=0x97af50,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97b010) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:696
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #6 0x00007fd0dd341809 in process_msg (fd=-1, opal_event=1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97af20) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:901
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #7 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #8 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #9 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #10 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #11 0x00007fd0dd340a02 in daemon_collective (sender=0x979700,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x9676e0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:696
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #12 0x00007fd0dd341809 in process_msg (fd=-1, opal_event=1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x9796d0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:901
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #13 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #14 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #15 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #16 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #17 0x00007fd0dd340a02 in daemon_collective (sender=0x97b420,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97b4e0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:696
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #18 0x00007fd0dd341809 in process_msg (fd=-1, opal_event=1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data=0x97b3f0) at grpcomm_bad_module.c:901
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #19 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #20 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags=1) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #21 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=1) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #22 0x00007fd0de5aeb6d in opal_progress () at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime/opal_progress.c:189
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #23 0x00007fd0dd969a8a in opal_condition_wait (c=0x97b210,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m=0x97b1a8) at ../../../../opal/threads/condition.h:99
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #24 0x00007fd0dd96a4bf in orte_rml_oob_send
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (peer=0x7fff0d9785a0, iov=0x7fff0d978530, count=1, tag=1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags=16) at rml_oob_send.c:153
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #25 0x00007fd0dd96ac4d in orte_rml_oob_send_buffer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (peer=0x7fff0d9785a0, buffer=0x7fff0d9786b0, tag=1, flags=0) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rml_oob_send.c:270
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #26 0x00007fd0de86ed2a in send_relay (buf=0x7fff0d9786b0) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orted/orted_comm.c:127
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #27 0x00007fd0de86f6de in orte_daemon_cmd_processor (fd=-1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opal_event=1, data=0x965fc0) at orted/orted_comm.c:308
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #28 0x00007fd0de5d5334 in event_process_active (base=0x930230)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at event.c:667
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #29 0x00007fd0de5d597a in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x930230,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags=0) at event.c:839
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #30 0x00007fd0de5d556b in opal_event_loop (flags=0) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.c:746
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #31 0x00007fd0de5d5418 in opal_event_dispatch () at event.c:682
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #32 0x00007fd0de86e339 in orte_daemon (argc=19,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argv=0x7fff0d979ca8) at orted/orted_main.c:769
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #33 0x00000000004008e2 in main (argc=19, argv=0x7fff0d979ca8) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orted.c:62
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devel mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
