Indeed. The lists you pinpoint at are used via the OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET macro,
which is based on atomic operations. We're all safe on that front.
Even if multiple threads call the self BTL functions simultaneously we are safe
due to the MPI semantics (the matching logic is protected, it can succee
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:58:52 -0500
George Bosilca wrote:
> The self BTL is different from any other BTL. Any memcpy operation
> done by this BTL is automatically protected behind the matching
> logic, and therefore does not require extra thread safety protection.
> A mutex in the self BTL is mostl
On Feb 8, 2012, at 8:58 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> The self BTL is different from any other BTL. Any memcpy operation done by
> this BTL is automatically protected behind the matching logic, and therefore
> does not require extra thread safety protection. A mutex in the self BTL is
> mostly a
The self BTL is different from any other BTL. Any memcpy operation done by this
BTL is automatically protected behind the matching logic, and therefore does
not require extra thread safety protection. A mutex in the self BTL is mostly a
copy/paste mistake.
george.
On Feb 8, 2012, at 17:57 ,
On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> I've noticed that the self btl does not do any locking. It has one
> lock defined but its not actually used anywhere.
>
> So I'm just wondering if that is an oversight or if there is a reason
> that we know for sure that there will never be co
