On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:27:55AM -0500, Tim Prins wrote:
> My understanding was that this behavior was not right, but upon further
> inspection of the pthreads documentation this behavior seems to be
> allowable.
>
I think that Open MPI does not implement condition variable in the strict
sense
Well, this makes some sense, although it still seems like this violates
the spirit of condition variables.
Thanks,
Tim
Brian W. Barrett wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Tim Prins wrote:
Tim Prins wrote:
First, in opal_condition_wait (condition.h:97) we do not release the
passed mutex if opal_usi
Ok, I think I am understanding this a bit now. By not decrementing the
signaled count, we are allowing a single broadcast to wake up the same
thread multiple times, and are allowing a single cond_signal to wake up
multiple threads.
My understanding was that this behavior was not right, but upo
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:46:45AM -0500, Tim Prins wrote:
> Also, when we are using threads, there is a case where we do not
> decrement the signaled count, in condition.h:84. Gleb put this in in
> r9451, however the change does not make sense to me. I think that the
> signal count should alway
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Tim Prins wrote:
Tim Prins wrote:
First, in opal_condition_wait (condition.h:97) we do not release the
passed mutex if opal_using_threads() is not set. Is there a reason for
this? I ask since this violates the way condition variables are supposed
to work, and it seems like t
Tim Prins wrote:
Hi,
A couple of questions.
First, in opal_condition_wait (condition.h:97) we do not release the
passed mutex if opal_using_threads() is not set. Is there a reason for
this? I ask since this violates the way condition variables are supposed
to work, and it seems like there ar
