hi Jeff to answer your question I too find the PSM 1/2 weird and a real mess. Back to IB verbs?
Howard Von meinem iPhone gesendet > Am 03.09.2015 um 06:55 schrieb Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com>: > > I agree with what George says. > > AFAIK, Red Hat builds Open MPI support for dlopen, so the config file option > is probably suitable. > > However, I have to admit that I resent the fact that PSM's poor upgrade path > design is forcing both the Open MPI and libfabric communities to have similar > confusing conversations (e.g., see > https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/issues/1258#issuecomment-137426271). > > Specifically: because of the design of PSM1/PSM2, both Open MPI and libfabric > will have to adjust their configury and use dlopen/function pointer > indirection to "solve" the problem of supporting both PSM1 and PSM2. > > Does that seem weird to anyone else? > > IMNSHO, if you have to have extremely confusing conversations in multiple > software communities explaining your configury, function-pointer-indirection > code (i.e., PR https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/pull/1259), compilation, > and linking scheme to upgrade to a new library, you're doing it wrong. > > > > >> On Sep 3, 2015, at 7:19 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> I might have missed some context when proposing this solution. As Gilles >> suggested if you build Open MPI without support for dlopen (configure option >> --disable-dlopen) this simple solution will not work because the symbol >> conflict issue is generated deep inside the constructors of the 2 libraries. >> >> Yes, the "mtl = ^psm" (or ^psm2 depending on which one you want to disable) >> should go in the openmpi-mca-params.conf that gets installed in the >> $(sysconfigdir). >> >> Thanks, >> George. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Michal Schmidt <mschm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> [I apologize for not threading the email properly. I was not subscribed >> before and found the conversation in the web archive.] >> >> Hello, >> >> I am the one who discovered the PSM vs. PSM2 library conflict and >> proposed the temporary workaround of having two builds of the openmpi >> package. >> >> George Bosilca wrote: >>> 3. Except if the distro builds OMPI statically, I see no reason to >>> have 2 build of OMPI due to conflicting symbols between two shared >>> libraries that OMPI MCA load willingly. Why a simple "mtl = ^psm" in >>> the OMPI system wide configuration file is not enough to solve the >>> issue? >> >> Thank you for this suggestion. It would go into openmpi-mca-params.conf, >> right? I will try it. >> >> Regards, >> Michal >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17927.php >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17928.php > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17931.php
