Yo Brian Are you saying that --enable-progress-threads automatically sets OPAL_HAVE_THREADS? Because otherwise the OPAL_THREAD_[UN]LOCK macros define to no-op, which is what is currently causing the problem.
>From what I saw, the only way to get the macros to define as they should was >to set --enable-mpi-threads, which is what caused the confusion. I don't have a strong opinion on the name, other than that it should be clear as to what it does (which is not the current case). Just want to make sure I understand your response. On Jan 28, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > Jeff - > > I think the idea is ok, but I think the name needs some thought. There's > currently two ways to have the lower layers be thread safe -- enabling MPI > threads or progress threads. The two can be done independently -- you can > disable MPI threads and still enable thread support by enabling progress > threads. > > So either that behavior would need to change or we need a better name (in my > opinion...). > > Brian > > On Jan 28, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> WHAT: Rename --enable-mpi-threads and ENABLE_MPI_THREADS to >> --enable-thread-safety and ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY, respectively >> (--enable-mpi-threads will be maintained as a synonym to >> --enable-thread-safety for backwards compat, of course). >> >> WHY: Other projects are starting to use ORTE and OPAL without OMPI. The >> fact that thread safety in OPAL and ORTE requires a configure switch with >> "mpi" in the name is very non-intuitive. >> >> WHERE: A bunch of places in the code; see attached patch. >> >> WHEN: Next Friday COB >> >> TIMEOUT: COB, Friday, Feb 5, 2010 >> >> ------------------------ >> >> More details: >> >> Cisco is starting to investigate using ORTE and OPAL in various threading >> scenarios -- without the OMPI layer. The fact that you need to enable >> thread safety in ORTE/OPAL with a configure switch that has the word "mpi" >> in it is extremely counter-intuitive (it bit some of our engineers very >> badly, and they were mighty annoyed!!). >> >> Since this functionality actually has nothing to do with MPI (it's actually >> the other way around -- MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE needs this functionality), we >> really should rename this switch and the corresponding AC_DEFINE -- I >> suggest: >> >> --enable|disable-thread-safety >> ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY >> >> Of course, we need to keep the configure switch >> "--enable|disable-mpi-threads" for backwards compatibility, so that can be a >> synonym to --enable-thread-safety. >> >> See the attached patch (the biggest change is in >> opal/config/opal_config_threads.m4). If there are no objections, I'll >> commit this next Friday COB. >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquy...@cisco.com >> <opal-thread-safety.diff>_______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
