Added to the wiki / agenda.
On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
> I think this is a good discussion for the Dallas meeting. We can hold
> off on this RFC until then.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:16:39PM -0500, George Bosilca wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:25
See note on other thread as to why we made the pthread decision
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
>
> Ok. Then I'm good with Gilles' plan.
>
> Anyone else?
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, we decided some time back that pthr
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet
> wrote:
>
>> Talking about thread support ...
>>
>> i made a RFC several monthes ago in order to remove the
>> --with-threads option from configure
>>
>> /* ompi requires pth
I think that makes sense. I checked and my CentOS box is actually using 1.12.4
and seems to be fine. I can update it though and probably should.
FWIW: good to remember that this problem only *can* occur - it doesn’t always
happen, and it seems to require some unusual steps to trigger it. So I do
I think this is a good discussion for the Dallas meeting. We can hold
off on this RFC until then.
-Nathan
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:16:39PM -0500, George Bosilca wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
>
> My enthusiasm for this was primarily becau
Ok. Then I'm good with Gilles' plan.
Anyone else?
On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
> Yes, we decided some time back that pthreads is a minimum requirement
> for Open MPI.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:26:01PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>> On Jan 7,
Yes, we decided some time back that pthreads is a minimum requirement
for Open MPI.
-Nathan
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:26:01PM +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet
> wrote:
>
> > Valid options are :
> > --with-threads e.g. --with-threads=pos
On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet
wrote:
> Valid options are :
> --with-threads e.g. --with-threads=posix e.g. default
> And
> --with-threads=no
>
> Except configure will explicitly fail if --with-threads=no is used
Which is the moral equivalent of not having this option. :-)
Valid options are :
--with-threads e.g. --with-threads=posix e.g. default
And
--with-threads=no
Except configure will explicitly fail if --with-threads=no is used
So bottom line, pthreads and pthreads only are usable
Cheers,
Gilles
"Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" さんのメール:
>On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:25 AM
On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet
wrote:
> Talking about thread support ...
>
> i made a RFC several monthes ago in order to remove the
> --with-threads option from configure
>
> /* ompi requires pthreads, no more, no less */
Did we decide this? (that OMPI *requires* pthreads)
On Jan 6, 2015, at 6:16 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> This is correct. We need the memory fences and atomic operations for shared
> memory in all cases. When thread support is enabled we also need them in
> various other places. However, this option also turns on the lock prefix for
> the atomic
On Jan 6, 2015, at 9:52 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> The 1.12 series had a set of problems caused by a changeover in the
> maintainers, so it should never be used. I’m not sure if any of those issues
> are behind this problem, but it could be so.
>
> Anyway, I think pretty much all of us are usi
Talking about thread support ...
i made a RFC several monthes ago in order to remove the
--with-threads option from configure
/* ompi requires pthreads, no more, no less */
it was accepted, but i could not find the time to implement it ...
basically, i can see three steps :
1) remove the --wit
13 matches
Mail list logo
