On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:58:52 -0500 George Bosilca <bosi...@eecs.utk.edu> wrote:
> The self BTL is different from any other BTL. Any memcpy operation > done by this BTL is automatically protected behind the matching > logic, and therefore does not require extra thread safety protection. > A mutex in the self BTL is mostly a copy/paste mistake. > So just to clarify, you don't just mean the data source and destination memory being protected by the matching logic, but also various linked lists such as self_frags_[eager|send|rdma] are implicitly protected? ie. Pretty much need an implicit guarantee that only one thread at a time will ever call the btl self functions which manipulate those lists. Regards, Chris > george. > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 17:57 , Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've noticed that the self btl does not do any locking. It has one > > lock defined but its not actually used anywhere. > > > > So I'm just wondering if that is an oversight or if there is a > > reason that we know for sure that there will never be concurrent > > access to that particular btl with threads enabled? > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris > > -- > > cy...@ozlabs.org > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- cy...@ozlabs.org
