Ick. I see the problem; I'll fix.
Thanks!
On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:48 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I just did something stupid. I tyupe in the wrong windows and I get a
segfault from ompi_info. It's not a big deal, as it's definitively
a user
mistake. But I don't think we should crash either ...
I just did something stupid. I tyupe in the wrong windows and I get a
segfault from ompi_info. It's not a big deal, as it's definitively a user
mistake. But I don't think we should crash either ...
Just try:
ompi_info --mca rds all
george.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but we must ne
On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:33:32AM -0700, Tim S. Woodall wrote:
Also memfree hooks decrease cache efficiency, the better solution
would
be to catch brk() system calls and remove memory from cache only
then,
but there is no way to do it for no
Looks great to me. Still wonder how we manage to get all the test up to
now ...
george.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> George -- can you review r8379?
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Tim S. Woodall wrote:
>
> > Most definately. Any large sends to self would not deliver
> > the co
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:33:32AM -0700, Tim S. Woodall wrote:
> > Also memfree hooks decrease cache efficiency, the better solution would
> > be to catch brk() system calls and remove memory from cache only then,
> > but there is no way to do it for now.
> >
>
> We are look at other options, in
Hello Gleb,
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 10:23:14AM -0700, Galen M. Shipman wrote:
Also there is a code commented out that enables memory hooks if
leave_pinned is set. Why this code is disabled? Infiniband will
not work correctly in such setup.
There is still some debate about
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 10:23:14AM -0700, Galen M. Shipman wrote:
> > Also there is a code commented out that enables memory hooks if
> > leave_pinned is set. Why this code is disabled? Infiniband will
> > not work correctly in such setup.
> There is still some debate about what will be the default
George -- can you review r8379?
On Dec 6, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Tim S. Woodall wrote:
Most definately. Any large sends to self would not deliver
the correct data, exhibited in NPB2.3.
Tim
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Tim --
Does this need to come over to v1.0?
On Dec 5, 2005, at 6:36 PM, twood...@os
Most definately. Any large sends to self would not deliver
the correct data, exhibited in NPB2.3.
Tim
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Tim --
Does this need to come over to v1.0?
On Dec 5, 2005, at 6:36 PM, twood...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
Author: twoodall
Date: 2005-12-05 18:36:33 -0500 (Mon, 05 Dec 2005)
Tim --
Does this need to come over to v1.0?
On Dec 5, 2005, at 6:36 PM, twood...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
Author: twoodall
Date: 2005-12-05 18:36:33 -0500 (Mon, 05 Dec 2005)
New Revision: 8379
Modified:
trunk/ompi/mca/btl/self/btl_self.c
Log:
fix send to self for large messages
Modified: trunk
10 matches
Mail list logo
