Hi, Nadia

I CMRed your patch to 1.8.2 and applied the fix on the trunk in:

https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/32346

Thanks for reporting!

Josh



On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Nadia Derbey <nadia.der...@bull.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I noticed that specifying the receive_queues through an mca param (-mca
> btl_openib_receive_queues ....) doesn't always override the
> mca-btl-openib-device-params.ini setting.
>
> If for whatever reason we want to bypass the mca-btl-openib-device-params.ini
> file setting for the receive_queues, we should be able to specify a value
> through an mca param.
> But if the string provided in the mca param is the same as the default one
> (default_qps in btl_openib_register_mca_params()), this does not work: we
> still get the receive_queues from the .ini file.
>
> This is due to the way the mca_btl_openib_component.receive_queues_source
> (where did we get the receive_queues value from) is computed:
>
> 1) in btl_openib_register_mca_params() we register
> btl_openib_receive_queues, providing default_qps as a default
>    value.
> 2) mca_btl_openib_component.receive_queues_source is set to
> BTL_OPENIB_RQ_SOURCE_MCA only if the registered string
>    is different from default_qps
>    (if both strings are equal, the source is set to
> BTL_OPENIB_RQ_SOURCE_DEFAULT).
> 3) then, in init_one_device(), mca_btl_openib_component.receive_queues_source
> is checked:
>      . if its value is BTL_OPENIB_RQ_SOURCE_MCA, we bypass any other
> setting (this is the behaviour I expected)
>      . otherwise, we go on, getting the .ini file settings (this is the
> behaviour I got)
>
> I wanted to know if this behaviour is intentional and the reason for it.
> If ever it is not, the attached trivial patch fixes it.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nadia Derbey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/07/15106.php
>

Reply via email to