On Montag, 23. Juni 2008, Shipman, Galen M. wrote:
> Oh, I see, you are confusing the req_state on the OMPI request with
> the req_state on the PML request.
>
> The ompi request state is for persistent requests, the PML request
> state is not and does not use that enum.
So, the req_state in
On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Ah -- I see -- we have 2 different fields with the same name (just
different places within the struct hierarchy) with different
meanings. That was a good idea. ;-)
exactly
Thanks; that actually helps understand things quite a bit.
On
Ah -- I see -- we have 2 different fields with the same name (just
different places within the struct hierarchy) with different
meanings. That was a good idea. ;-)
Thanks; that actually helps understand things quite a bit.
On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote:
Oh, I see,
Oh, I see, you are confusing the req_state on the OMPI request with
the req_state on the PML request.
The ompi request state is for persistent requests, the PML request
state is not and does not use that enum.
- Galen
On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 23, 2008, at
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote:
Just because it's volatile doesn't mean that adds are atomic. There's at
least one place in the PML (or used to be) where two threads could
decrement that counter at the same time.
With atomics,
On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote:
Just because it's volatile doesn't mean that adds are atomic.
There's at least one place in the PML (or used to be) where two
threads could decrement that counter at the same time.
With atomics, then both subtracts should occur, right?
Just because it's volatile doesn't mean that adds are atomic. There's at
least one place in the PML (or used to be) where two threads could
decrement that counter at the same time.
Brian
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I see in a few places in ob1 we do things like this:
I see in a few places in ob1 we do things like this:
OPAL_THREAD_ADD32(>req_state, -1);
Why do we do this? req_state is technically an enum value, so we
shouldn't be adding/subtracting to it (granted, it looks like the enum
values were carefully chosen to allow this). Additionally,
