v
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 7:44 AM
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] autoconf warnings: openib BTL
>
> Actually I think if you build your job with one kernel version and run it on
> nodes that have an
evel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Vasily Filipov
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 7:44 AM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] autoconf warnings: openib BTL
Actually I think if you build your job with one kernel version and run it on
nodes that have another version so rdmacm will be the
Actually I think if you build your job with one kernel version and run
it on nodes that have another version so rdmacm will be the smallest
your problem.
Anyway, here is the revision fixes the issue.
r31194 | vasily | 2014
I think the critical point is this one:
> To be clear: whether AF_IB works or not is a determination to make on the
> machines on which you *run* -- NOT on the machine on which you *build*.
Many of our users compile on the frontend node of their cluster, which doesn't
even have an IB NIC instal
On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:59 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
> >>>Right? If so, I don't see why you need the AC_TRY_RUN -- if RDMACM is
> >>>easily detectable as to which way it is compiled (because it has, for
> >>>example, different fields), then AC_CHECK_DECLS should be enough, right?
>
> RDMACM API ha
>>>Right? If so, I don't see why you need the AC_TRY_RUN -- if RDMACM is
easily detectable as to which way it is compiled (because it has, for
example, different fields), then AC_CHECK_DECLS should be enough, right?
RDMACM API has different implementation requirements for its providers:
tcp, af_i
On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Mike Dubman wrote:
> but AF_IB is always declared, regardless of actual presence in the kernel.
Right, which is why I don't understand the original comments that you can't do
a run-time test for it...
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Le
but AF_IB is always declared, regardless of actual presence in the kernel.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Let me see if I can help translate. I think the problem here is Jeff's
> comment about a "run time check", which wasn't actually what he is
> proposing here.
>
> If
Let me see if I can help translate. I think the problem here is Jeff's
comment about a "run time check", which wasn't actually what he is
proposing here.
If you look at Jeff's proposed code, what he is saying is that you don't
need to use AC_TRY_RUN - you can just build based on whether or not AF_
On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:08 AM, Vasily Filipov wrote:
>> #if HAVE_DECL_AF_IB
>>rc = try_using_af_ib();
>>if (OMPI_ERR_NOT_AVAILABLE == rc) {
>>rc = try_the_other_way();
>>}
>> #else
>>rc = try_the_other_way();
>> #endif
>I mean I cannot use "another way" if func call for
On 05-Mar-14 18:08, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Vasily Filipov wrote:
Yes, it is possible, but there is some different if I will do it this way -
With the current implementation (today into a trunk) if AC_RUN_IFELSE fails
=> old code of RDMACM will rise,
A
On Mar 3, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Vasily Filipov wrote:
> Yes, it is possible, but there is some different if I will do it this way -
> With the current implementation (today into a trunk) if AC_RUN_IFELSE fails
> => old code of RDMACM will rise,
> And by way you suggest, if we postpone the decisio
Yes, it is possible, but there is some different if I will do it this way -
With the current implementation (today into a trunk) if AC_RUN_IFELSE
fails => old code of RDMACM will rise,
And by way you suggest, if we postpone the decision to a run time and
the check fails =>
we have to abort
Can't you test for that at run-time?
I.e., can't you do the configure-time test to see if AF_IB exists, and if it
does, do a run-time check to see if it's useful/supported in the kernel? Or is
there a reason not to do this (e.g., it would impose a performance penalty at
run time because the ch
some additional explanation - it could be a situation when AF_IB is
defined in user space but kernel doesn't support it.
On 03-Mar-14 08:53, Vasily Filipov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I've committed the fixes (r30905). It is a problem to detect
kernel defines (such as AF_IB ), so we have to use AC_RU
Hi Jeff,
I've committed the fixes (r30905). It is a problem to detect kernel
defines (such as AF_IB ), so we have to use AC_RUN_IFELSE macro.
Thanks,
Vasily.
On 27-Feb-14 17:09, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
I'm seeing this warning this morning:
-
configure.ac:1139: warning: AC_RUN_
16 matches
Mail list logo
