On 7/22/13 9:19 AM, "David Goodell (dgoodell)" <dgood...@cisco.com> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "Barrett, Brian W" <bwba...@sandia.gov> >wrote: > >> On 7/20/13 3:33 PM, "George Bosilca" <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> >>> - In terms of memory this solution provide an approach where there >>>will never be an extra overhead. The ompi_proc_t is not changed, and >>>the extra array of endpoints is only created if the components that >>>share it, are all loaded and enabled. >> >> I agree. Jeff and I talked about a similar concept, but the dependent >>load was an idea crusher to me. > >I'm not really familiar with the code being discussed here, but could you >insert a small fixed-size cache in front of this in order to mitigate >this second load in the most common cases That's essentially what I was proposing, except that the size of the cache would be based on how many components claim they need a cache entry during configure time. George seems to think that number will blow up. I think that since we're adding a dynamic interface, we can use the RFC process that's already in place to make sure it stays small. Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
