Here the SM BTL parameters:
$ ompi_info --param btl sm
MCA btl: parameter "btl_base_verbose" (current value: <0>, data source:
default value) Verbosity level of the BTL framework
MCA btl: parameter "btl" (current value: , data source: file
[/sw/atlas/libraries/openmpi/1.5.5rc3/x86_64/etc/openmpi
Dear All,
Next feedback is about "collective communications".
Collective communication may be abend when it use over 2GiB buffer.
This problem occurs following condition:
-- communicator_size * count(scount/rcount) >= 2GiB
It occurs in even small PC cluster.
The following is one of the suspiciou
Yuki,
I pushed a fix for this issue in the trunk (r26097). However, I disagree with
you on some of the topics below.
On Mar 5, 2012, at 04:02 , Y.MATSUMOTO wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Next feedback is about "collective communications".
>
> Collective communication may be abend when it use over 2Gi
George,
I think Yuki's interpretation is correct.
The following is one of the suspicious parts.
(Many similar code in ompi/coll/tuned/*.c)
--- in ompi/coll/tuned/coll_tuned_allgather.c (V1.4.X's trunk)---
398tmprecv = (char*) rbuf + rank * rcount * rext;
---
I was afraid about all those little intermediary steps. I asked a compiler guy
and apparently reversing the order (aka starting with the ptrdiff_t variable)
will not solve anything. The only portable way to solve this is to cast every
single member, to prevent __any__ compiler from hurting us.
On Mar 5 2012, George Bosilca wrote:
I was afraid about all those little intermediary steps. I asked a
compiler guy and apparently reversing the order (aka starting with the
ptrdiff_t variable) will not solve anything. The only portable way to
solve this is to cast every single member, to pre
I gave it a try (r26103). It was messy, and I hope I got it right. Let's soak
it for few days with our nightly testing to see how it behave.
george.
On Mar 5, 2012, at 16:37 , N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Mar 5 2012, George Bosilca wrote:
>>
>> I was afraid about all those little intermediary s
On Mar 5 2012, George Bosilca wrote:
I gave it a try (r26103). It was messy, and I hope I got it right. Let's
soak it for few days with our nightly testing to see how it behave.
That'll at least check that it's not totally broken. The killer about
such wording is that you cannot guarantee ex
