Re: [OMPI devel] race condition in oob/tcp
Thanks! I won't have time to work on it this week, but appreciate your effort. Also, thanks for clarifying the race condition vis 1.8 - I agree it is not a blocker for that release. Ralph On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote: > Ralph, > > here is the patch i am using so far. > i will resume working on this from Wednesday (there is at least one remaining > race condition yet) unless you have the time to take care of it today. > > so far, the race condition has only been observed in real life with the > grpcomm/rcd module, and this is not the default in v1.8, so imho this is not > a blocker for v1.8.3 > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > Gilles - please let me know if/when you think you'll do this. I'm debating > about adding it to 1.8.3, but don't want to delay that release too long. > Alternatively, I can take care of it if you don't have time (I'm asking if > you can do it solely because you have the reproducer). > > > On Sep 21, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > >> Sounds fine with me - please go ahead, and thanks >> >> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the pointer George ! >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 5:46 AM, George Bosilca wrote: >>> Or copy the handshake protocol design of the TCP BTL... >>> >>> >>> the main difference between oob/tcp and btl/tcp is the way we resolve the >>> situation in which two processes send their first message to each other at >>> the same time. >>> >>> in oob/tcp, all (e.g. one or two) sockets are closed and the higher vpid is >>> directed to retry establishing a connection. >>> >>> in btl/tcp, the useless socket is closed (e.g. the one that was connect-ed >>> on the lower vpid and the one that was accept-ed on the higher vpid. >>> >>> >>> my first impression is that oob/tcp is un-necessary complex and it should >>> use the simpler and most efficient protocol of btl/tcp. >>> that being said, this conclusion could be too naive and for some good >>> reasons i ignore, the btl/tcp handshake protocol might not be a good fit >>> for oob/tcp. >>> >>> any thoughts ? >>> >>> i will revamp oob/tcp in order to use the same btl/tcp handshake protocol >>> from tomorrow unless indicated otherwise >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gilles >>> ___ >>> 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/2014/09/15885.php >> > > > ___ > 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/2014/09/15895.php > > ___ > 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/2014/09/15897.php
[OMPI devel] opal components still #including OMPI header files
>From SVN trunk HEAD (r32772): - mca/btl/ugni/btl_ugni_component.c 20:#include "ompi/runtime/params.h" mca/btl/usnic/btl_usnic_compat.h 43:# include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" --> This is ok; it is protected in a #if (just to make diffs to v1.8 easier) mca/common/ofacm/common_ofacm_xoob.c 26:#include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" mca/common/ofacm/common_ofacm_oob.c 37:#include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" mca/mpool/sm/mpool_sm_module.c 36:#include "ompi/runtime/ompi_cr.h" /* TODO */ - -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [OMPI devel] opal components still #including OMPI header files
ofacm needs to be updated to remove xoob and oob modules as those cannot be used from the opal layer On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > From SVN trunk HEAD (r32772): > > - > mca/btl/ugni/btl_ugni_component.c > 20:#include "ompi/runtime/params.h" > > mca/btl/usnic/btl_usnic_compat.h > 43:# include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" > --> This is ok; it is protected in a #if (just to make diffs to v1.8 easier) > > mca/common/ofacm/common_ofacm_xoob.c > 26:#include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" > > mca/common/ofacm/common_ofacm_oob.c > 37:#include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" > > mca/mpool/sm/mpool_sm_module.c > 36:#include "ompi/runtime/ompi_cr.h" /* TODO */ > - > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > ___ > 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/2014/09/15901.php
Re: [OMPI devel] opal components still #including OMPI header files
Rolf -- please add this to the agenda for today. On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > ofacm needs to be updated to remove xoob and oob modules as those cannot be > used from the opal layer > > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > wrote: > >> From SVN trunk HEAD (r32772): >> >> - >> mca/btl/ugni/btl_ugni_component.c >> 20:#include "ompi/runtime/params.h" >> >> mca/btl/usnic/btl_usnic_compat.h >> 43:# include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" >> --> This is ok; it is protected in a #if (just to make diffs to v1.8 easier) >> >> mca/common/ofacm/common_ofacm_xoob.c >> 26:#include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" >> >> mca/common/ofacm/common_ofacm_oob.c >> 37:#include "ompi/mca/rte/rte.h" >> >> mca/mpool/sm/mpool_sm_module.c >> 36:#include "ompi/runtime/ompi_cr.h" /* TODO */ >> - >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquy...@cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> ___ >> 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/2014/09/15901.php > > ___ > 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/2014/09/15902.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
[OMPI devel] Conversion to GitHub: tomorrow (Sep 24, 2014)
REMINDER: The conversion of Open MPI's Subversion repository and Trac tickets will be happening tomorrow, Wednesday, September 24, 2014. SVN and Trac will be going read-only at 8am US Eastern tomorrow, and the conversion process will begin. I anticipate it taking all day. I'll send an "all clear" email when I'm all finished, along with additional details. You should probably go read up on how we're going to use GitHub: https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [OMPI devel] Need to know your Github ID
Sorry for the delay in response, somehow I missed this. Those were SVN IDs. I have created a github id (vvenkatesan) vvenkates is the currently active SVN ID. So vvenkates -> vvenkatesan Thanks Vish On Sep 18, 2014, at 10:58 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" wrote: On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Vishwanath Venkatesan wrote: > I seem to have two ids, vvenkates and vvenkatesan > I prefer to keep vvenkatesan Are you referring to your Github or SVN IDs? > Thanks > Vish > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 06:34 AM, Alina Sklarevich wrote: > > > ompimtttester > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Alex Margolin wrote: > > alex - > alex-ma > > alinas - > alinask > > amikheev - > alex-mikheev > > > > vasily - > vasilyMellanox > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > > As the next step of the planned migration to Github, I need to know: > > > > - Your Github ID (so that you can be added to the new OMPI git repo) > > - Your SVN ID (so that I can map SVN- >Github IDs, and therefore map Trac tickets to appropriate owners) > > > > Here's the list of SVN IDs who have committed over the past year -- I'm guessing that most of these people will need Github IDs: > > > > adrian > > alekseys > > alex > > alinas > > amikheev > > bbenton > > bosilca (done) > > bouteill > > brbarret > > bwesarg > > devendar > > dgoodell (done) > > edgar > > eugene > > ggouaillardet > > hadi > > hjelmn > > hpcchris > > hppritcha > > igoru > > jjhursey (done) > > jladd > > jroman > > jsquyres (done) > > jurenz > > kliteyn > > manjugv > > miked (done) > > mjbhaskar > > mpiteam (done) > > naughtont > > osvegis > > pasha > > regrant > > rfaucett > > rhc (done) > > rolfv (done) > > samuel > > shiqing > > swise > > tkordenbrock > > vasily > > vvenkates > > vvenkatesan > > yaeld > > yosefe > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquy...@cisco.com > > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > > ___ > > 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/2014/09/15788.php > > > > > > ___ > > 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/2014/09/15864.php > > > > ___ > > 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/2014/09/15866.php > ___ > 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/2014/09/15876.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ ___ 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/2014/09/15877.php
Re: [OMPI devel] Conversion to GitHub: POSTPONED
At just about at the last minute, a new contender showed up: GerritHub.io. GerritHub claims to allow us to effectively have ACLs on branches. I.e., everyone could commit on master, but only release managers can commit on release branches. This would be nice, and would allow us to avoid having the 2 repos, like we're currently planning to do at Github (i.e., "ompi" and "ompi-release"). We need a little time to investigate this, and it seems prudent to postpone the transition tomorrow. We'll tentatively aim for *next* Wednesday, October 1, 2014. On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > REMINDER: The conversion of Open MPI's Subversion repository and Trac tickets > will be happening tomorrow, Wednesday, September 24, 2014. > > SVN and Trac will be going read-only at 8am US Eastern tomorrow, and the > conversion process will begin. I anticipate it taking all day. > > I'll send an "all clear" email when I'm all finished, along with additional > details. > > You should probably go read up on how we're going to use GitHub: > >https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [OMPI devel] Conversion to GitHub: POSTPONED
"Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" writes: > GerritHub claims to allow us to effectively have ACLs on branches. > I.e., everyone could commit on master, but only release managers can > commit on release branches. This would be nice, and would allow us to > avoid having the 2 repos, like we're currently planning to do at > Github (i.e., "ompi" and "ompi-release"). I don't have experience with GerritHub, but Bitbucket supports this feature (permissions on branch names/globs) and we use it in PETSc. pgpGdCnibB071.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OMPI devel] Conversion to GitHub: POSTPONED
On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > I don't have experience with GerritHub, but Bitbucket supports this > feature (permissions on branch names/globs) and we use it in PETSc. Thanks for the info. Paul Hargrove said pretty much the same thing to me, off-list. I'll check it out. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [OMPI devel] Conversion to GitHub: POSTPONED
my 0.02 US$ ... Bitbucket pricing model is per user (but with free public/private repository up to 5 users) whereas github pricing is per *private* repository (and free public repository and with unlimited users) from an OpenMPI point of view, this means : - with github, only the private ompi-tests repository requires a fee - with bitbucket, the ompi repository requires a fee (there are 119 users in https://github.com/open-mpi/authors/blob/master/authors.txt, in bitbucket pricing model, that means unlimited users and this is 200US$ per month) per branch ACL is a feature that was requested lng time ago on bitbucket, and now they implemented it, i would not expect it takes too much time before github implements it too. from the documentation, gerrithub has also interesting features : - force the use of a workflow (assuming the workflow is a good match with how we want to work ...) - prevent developers from commiting a huge mess to github Gilles On 2014/09/24 10:36, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > >> I don't have experience with GerritHub, but Bitbucket supports this >> feature (permissions on branch names/globs) and we use it in PETSc. > Thanks for the info. Paul Hargrove said pretty much the same thing to me, > off-list. > > I'll check it out. >
Re: [OMPI devel] Conversion to GitHub: POSTPONED
The pricing question might not be as simple as it first sounds. At BitBucket Academic accounts are free and allow unlimited users. So, if somebody with an .EDU email address (IU and UTK come to mind) are the owners of the repo then I believe the cost is zero. Somebody should verify that rather than take my word for it. More points for comparison between BitBucket and GitHub are presented in http://www.infoworld.com/article/2611771/application-development/bitbucket-vs--github--which-project-host-has-the-most-.html -Paul On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet < gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote: > my 0.02 US$ ... > > Bitbucket pricing model is per user (but with free public/private > repository up to 5 users) > whereas github pricing is per *private* repository (and free public > repository and with unlimited users) > > from an OpenMPI point of view, this means : > - with github, only the private ompi-tests repository requires a fee > - with bitbucket, the ompi repository requires a fee (there are 119 > users in https://github.com/open-mpi/authors/blob/master/authors.txt, in > bitbucket pricing model, that means unlimited users and this is 200US$ > per month) > > per branch ACL is a feature that was requested lng time ago on > bitbucket, and now they implemented it, i would not expect it takes > too much time before github implements it too. > > from the documentation, gerrithub has also interesting features : > - force the use of a workflow (assuming the workflow is a good match > with how we want to work ...) > - prevent developers from commiting a huge mess to github > > Gilles > > On 2014/09/24 10:36, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > > >> I don't have experience with GerritHub, but Bitbucket supports this > >> feature (permissions on branch names/globs) and we use it in PETSc. > > Thanks for the info. Paul Hargrove said pretty much the same thing to > me, off-list. > > > > I'll check it out. > > > > ___ > 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/2014/09/15909.php > -- Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov Future Technologies Group Computer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
