Everyone:
George thought this was okay after the discussion, I should have made
the wiki prior to my commit as it did look very Open IB specific.
please review:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/wiki/BTLSemantics
Let me know if you want to discuss this further and we can setup a
call ear
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:38:51PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:11:12AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
> >>) I expect you to revise the patch in order to propose a generic
> >>solution or I'll trigger a vote against
Call in details:
I have scheduled your requested audio conference "Open MPI" for today
beginning at 2:30pm to 3:30pm mountain time with 7 ports.
Dial in number: 5-4165 local 866-260-0475 toll free
- Galen
On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Galen Shipman wrote:
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Do
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Don Kerr wrote:
It would be difficult for me to attend this afternoon. Tomorrow is
much
better for me.
Brian and I are both out tomorrow. I think what we will do is have a
call today, report back to the group and then if necessary have
another call on Mond
Okay, how is 2:30 mountain time for everyone?
I will setup a a call in if this works.
Thanks,
Galen
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:39 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I'm available this afternoon.
george.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Galen Shipman wrote:
Are people available today to discuss this ov
I'm available this afternoon...
Brian
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:39 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I'm available this afternoon.
george.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Galen Shipman wrote:
Are people available today to discuss this over the phone?
- Galen
On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Gleb Natapo
It would be difficult for me to attend this afternoon. Tomorrow is much
better for me.
-DON
George Bosilca wrote:
I'm available this afternoon.
george.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Galen Shipman wrote:
Are people available today to discuss this over the phone?
- Galen
On Jun 7, 20
I'm available this afternoon.
george.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Galen Shipman wrote:
Are people available today to discuss this over the phone?
- Galen
On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:11:12AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
) I expect you to
On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:11:12AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
) I expect you to revise the patch in order to propose a generic
solution or I'll trigger a vote against the patch. I vote to be
backed out of the trunk as it export way to much know
Are people available today to discuss this over the phone?
- Galen
On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:11:12AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
) I expect you to revise the patch in order to propose a generic
solution or I'll trigger a vote against the p
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:11:12AM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
> ) I expect you to revise the patch in order to propose a generic
> solution or I'll trigger a vote against the patch. I vote to be
> backed out of the trunk as it export way to much knowledge from the
> Open IB BTL into the PML
On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:11 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
There is something weird with this change, and the patch reflect
it. The new argument "order" come from the PML level and might be
MCA_BTL_NO_ORDER (which is kind of global) or BTL_OPENIB_LP_QP or
BTL_OPENIB_HP_QP (which are definitively Op
There is something weird with this change, and the patch reflect it.
The new argument "order" come from the PML level and might be
MCA_BTL_NO_ORDER (which is kind of global) or BTL_OPENIB_LP_QP or
BTL_OPENIB_HP_QP (which are definitively Open IB related). Do you
really intend to let the PML
Hi Galen,
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:19:09AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
>
> > With current code this is not the case. Order tag is set during a
> > fragment
> > allocation. It seems wrong according to your description. Attached
> > patch fixes
> > this. If no specific ordering tag is provide
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:23:23AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The problem is that MCA_BTL_DES_FLAGS_PRIORITY was meant to indicate
> >> that the fragment was higher priority, but the fragment isn't higher
> >> priority. It simply needs to be ordered w.r.t. a previous fragment,
> >>
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:19:09AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
>
> > With current code this is not the case. Order tag is set during a
> > fragment
> > allocation. It seems wrong according to your description. Attached
> > patch fixes
> > this. If no specific ordering tag is provided to alloca
doh,, correction..
On May 27, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Galen Shipman wrote:
The problem is that MCA_BTL_DES_FLAGS_PRIORITY was meant to
indicate
that the fragment was higher priority, but the fragment isn't higher
priority. It simply needs to be ordered w.r.t. a previous fragment,
an RDMA in th
The problem is that MCA_BTL_DES_FLAGS_PRIORITY was meant to indicate
that the fragment was higher priority, but the fragment isn't higher
priority. It simply needs to be ordered w.r.t. a previous fragment,
an RDMA in this case.
But after the change priority flags is totally ignored.
So the
With current code this is not the case. Order tag is set during a
fragment
allocation. It seems wrong according to your description. Attached
patch fixes
this. If no specific ordering tag is provided to allocation
function order of
the fragment is set to be MCA_BTL_NO_ORDER. After call to s
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 2:48 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> > I see the problem this patch try to solve, but I fail to correctly
> > understand the implementation. The patch affect all PML and BTL in
> > the code base by adding one
On May 24, 2007, at 2:48 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I see the problem this patch try to solve, but I fail to correctly
understand the implementation. The patch affect all PML and BTL in
the code base by adding one more argument to some of the most often
called functions. And there is only o
I see the problem this patch try to solve, but I fail to correctly
understand the implementation. The patch affect all PML and BTL in
the code base by adding one more argument to some of the most often
called functions. And there is only one BTL (openib) who seems to use
it while all others
22 matches
Mail list logo
