On 10 Jan 2010, at 03:45, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> We should absolutely not change this. For simple applications, yes, things
> work if large blocks are allocated on the heap. However, ptmalloc (and most
> allocators, really), can't rationally cope with repeated allocations and
> deallocati
On 11 Jan 2010, at 16:52, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Arrgh -- if only the Linux kernel community had accepted ummunotify, this
> would now be a moot point (i.e., the argument would be solely with the
> OS/glibc, not the MPI!).
Disabling MMAP based malloc is purely about performance, ummunotify is a
On Jan 17, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2010, at 03:45, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>> We should absolutely not change this. For simple applications, yes, things
>> work if large blocks are allocated on the heap. However, ptmalloc (and most
>> allocators, really), can't
On 17 Jan 2010, at 16:50, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jan 2010, at 03:45, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>>
>>> We should absolutely not change this. For simple applications, yes, things
>>> work if large blocks are allocated on the heap.
