On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>> Why not use pre-posted non-blocking receives and MPI_WAIT_ANY?
>
> That's not very scalable either… Might work for 256 processes, but that's
> about it.
Just get a machine with oodles of RAM and you'll be fine.
;-)
I actually was thinking
On Sep 28, 2011, at 08:29 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Why not use pre-posted non-blocking receives and MPI_WAIT_ANY?
That's not very scalable either… Might work for 256 processes, but that's about
it.
george.
> If you effectively randomize the order of the requests in the array, you can
> basi
Why not use pre-posted non-blocking receives and MPI_WAIT_ANY?
If you effectively randomize the order of the requests in the array, you can
basically control the fairness.
On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Sébastien Boisvert wrote:
> Hello/bonjour,
>
>
> I modified your patch so that in the wors
Hello/bonjour,
I modified your patch so that in the worse case exactly comm->num_procs are
probed (I just changed a < for a <= in the second for loop).
The behavior of your patch was to probe a maximum of comm->num_procs - 1, thus
hanging if comm->last_probed has to be probed.
With the patch
