On Jun 2, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> This RFC also got discussed on the weekly call (and in several other
> discussions). Again, no one seemed to hate it. That being said, hwloc still
> needs a bit more soak time; I just committed the 32 bit fix the other day.
We've had what app
To follow up on this RFC...
This RFC also got discussed on the weekly call (and in several other
discussions). Again, no one seemed to hate it. That being said, hwloc still
needs a bit more soak time; I just committed the 32 bit fix the other day.
So this one will happen eventually (i.e., #1,
On May 18, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> The above sounds like you are replacing the whole paffinity framework with
> hwloc. Is that true? Or is the hwloc accessors you are talking about
> non-paffinity related?
Good point; these have all gotten muddled in the email chain. Let me r
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Just chatted with Ralph about this on the phone and he came up with a slightly
better compromise...
He points out that we really don't need *all* of the hwloc API (there's a
bajillion tiny little accessor functions). We could provide a steady,
OPAL/ORTE/OMPI-specific API
Just chatted with Ralph about this on the phone and he came up with a slightly
better compromise...
He points out that we really don't need *all* of the hwloc API (there's a
bajillion tiny little accessor functions). We could provide a steady,
OPAL/ORTE/OMPI-specific API (probably down in opal
On May 17, 2010, at 7:59 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> HWLOC could be extended to support Red Storm, probably, but we don't have the
> need or time to do such an implementation.
Fair enough.
> Given that, I'm not really picky about what the method of not breaking an
> existing supported plat
d.
>
> -jms
> Sent from my PDA. No type good.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Sent: Mon May 17 17:36:58 2010
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
>
> I'd prefer w
pers
Sent: Mon May 17 17:36:58 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
I'd prefer we not commit something in opal/hwloc until we have a plan for
supporting platforms without hwloc support (ie, Red Storm). I have no
objection to your original RFC, but I had th
I'd prefer we not commit something in opal/hwloc until we have a plan for
supporting platforms without hwloc support (ie, Red Storm). I have no
objection to your original RFC, but I had the impression at the time that you
had a plan in place for non-hwloc supported platforms.
Brian
On May 17,
On May 15, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> So, to ensure I understand, you are proposing that we completely eliminate
> the paffinity framework and commit to hwloc in its place?
I think there's 2 issues here:
- topology information
- binding
hwloc supports both. paffinity mainly supp
ly
>> amendment to this rfc.
>>
>> -jms
>> Sent from my PDA. No type good.
>>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org
>> To: Open MPI Developers
>> Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
>> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC:
> Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
>
> Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing
> paffinity on machines that don't have all the required support (e.g., Mac).
&g
Oh, I mis-read your mail. Yes, leaving the "test" component is a friendly
amendment to this rfc.
-jms
Sent from my PDA. No type good.
- Original Message -
From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org
To: Open MPI Developers
Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] R
about
> 2 weeks; I thought that should be enough. But there's really no rush.
>
> -jms
> Sent from my PDA. No type good.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
> S
- Original Message -
From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org
To: Open MPI Developers
Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing
paffinity on ma
Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing
paffinity on machines that don't have all the required support (e.g., Mac).
I don't have an opinion on the other components.
On May 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> WHAT: Remove all non-hwloc paffinity compone
On 14/05/10 10:20, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> That being said, we might as well leave the paffinity
> framework around, even if it only has one component left,
> simply on the argument that someday Open MPI may support
> a platform that hwloc does not.
Sounds good to me.
cheers!
Chris
--
Christoph
17 matches
Mail list logo
