Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk broken for PPC64?

2014-08-02 Thread Ralph Castain
Good suggestion, Paul - I have committed it in r32407 and added it to cmr #4826 Thanks! Ralph On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:12 AM, Paul Hargrove wrote: > Gilles, > > At the moment ompi/mca/osc/sm/osc_sm_component.c is using the following: > > #ifdef HAVE_GETPAGESIZE >

Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk broken for PPC64?

2014-08-01 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
Paul, i just commited r32393 (and made a CMR for v1.8) can you please give it a try ? in the mean time, i received your email ... sysconf is called directly (e.g. no #ifdef protected) in several other places : $ grep -R sysconf . | grep -v svn | grep -v sysconfdir | grep -v autom4te |grep

Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk broken for PPC64?

2014-08-01 Thread Paul Hargrove
Hmm, maybe this has nothing to do with big-endian. Below is a backtrace from ring_c on an IA64 platform (definitely little-endian) that looks very similar to me. It happens that sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) returns 64K on both of these systems. So, I wonder if that might be related. -Paul $ mpirun

Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk broken for PPC64?

2014-08-01 Thread Paul Hargrove
Gilles's findings are consistent with mine which showed the SEGVs to be in the coll/ml code. I've built with --enable-debug and so below is a backtrace (well, two actually) that might be helpful. Unfortunately the output of the two ranks did get slightly entangled. -Paul $ ../INST/bin/mpirun

Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk broken for PPC64?

2014-08-01 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
Paul and Ralph, for what it's worth : a) i faced the very same issue on my (slw) qemu emulated ppc64 vm b) i was able to run very basic programs when passing --mca coll ^ml to mpirun Cheers, Gilles On 2014/08/01 12:30, Ralph Castain wrote: > Yes, I fear this will require some effort to

Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk broken for PPC64?

2014-08-01 Thread Ralph Castain
Yes, I fear this will require some effort to chase all the breakage down given that (to my knowledge, at least) we lack PPC machines in the devel group. On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote: > On the path to verifying George's atomics patch, I have started just