Hi,
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 2:00 am, r...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> I’m confused - mpi_yield_when_idle=1 is precisely the “oversubscribed”
> setting. So why would you expect different results?
Ahh — I didn’t realise it auto-detected this. I recall working on a system in
the past where I needed to
Dear rhc,
dear Reuti,
thanks for your valuable help!
Kind regards,
Ado Arnolds
On 22.03.2017 15:55, r...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> Sorry folks - for some reason (probably timing for getting 2.1.0 out), the
> fix for this got pushed to v2.1.1 - see the PR here:
>
On Mar 27, 2017, at 11:00 AM, r...@open-mpi.org wrote:
>
> I’m confused - mpi_yield_when_idle=1 is precisely the “oversubscribed”
> setting. So why would you expect different results?
A few additional points to Ralph's question:
1. Recall that sched_yield() has effectively become a no-op in
I was not expecting different results. I just wanted to respond to Ben's
suggestion, and demonstrate that the problem (the performance difference
between v.1.10.1 and v.1.10.2) is not caused by spin-waiting.
On 27/03/2017 17:00, r...@open-mpi.org wrote:
I’m confused - mpi_yield_when_idle=1 is
I’m confused - mpi_yield_when_idle=1 is precisely the “oversubscribed” setting.
So why would you expect different results?
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:52 AM, Jordi Guitart wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. As described here
>
> "SJ" == Sylvain Jeaugey writes:
Hi Sylvain,
thanks for looking into this further.
SJ> I'm still working to get a clear confirmation of what is
SJ> printing this error message and since when.
SJ> However, running strings, I could only find this string in