Sure, I will make the changes and commit to make them OMPI specific. I will post forward my problems on the devel list.
I will keep you posted. :) 2014-11-27 13:58 GMT+01:00 Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com>: > On Nov 26, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Nick Papior Andersen <nickpap...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Here is my commit-msg: > > " > > We can now split communicators based on hwloc full capabilities up to > BOARD. > > I.e.: > > HWTHREAD,CORE,L1CACHE,L2CACHE,L3CACHE,SOCKET,NUMA,NODE,BOARD > > where NODE is the same as SHARED. > > " > > > > Maybe what I did could be useful somehow? > > I mean to achieve the effect one could do: > > comm_split_type(MPI_COMM_TYPE_Node,comm) > > create new group from all nodes not belonging to this group. > > This can even be more fine tuned if one wishes to create a group of > "master" cores on each node. > > I will say that there was a lot of debate about this kind of functionality > at the MPI Forum. The problem is that although x86-based clusters are > quite common these days, they are not the only kind of machines used for > HPC out there, and the exact definitions of these kinds of concepts > (hwthread, core, lXcache, socket, numa, ...etc.) can vary between > architectures. > > Hence, the compromise was to just have MPI_COMM_TYPE_SHARED, where the > resulting communicator contains processes that share a single memory space. > > That being said, since OMPI uses hwloc for all of its supported > architectures, it might be worthwhile to have an OMPI extension for > OMPI_COMM_TYPE_<foo> for the various different types. One could/should > only use these new constants if the OPEN_MPI macro is defined and is 1. > > And *that* being said, one of the goals of MPI is portability, so anyone > using these constants would inherently non-portable. :-) > > > I have not been able to compile it due to my autogen.pl giving me some > errors. > > What kind of errors? (we might want to move this discussion to the devel > list...) > > > However, I think it should compile just fine. > > > > Do you think it could be useful? > > > > If interested you can find my, single commit branch, at: > https://github.com/zerothi/ompi > > This looks interesting. > > Can you file a pull requests against the ompi master, and send something > to the devel list about this functionality? > > I'd still strongly suggest renaming these constants to the "OMPI_" to > differentiate them from standard MPI constants / functionality. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2014/11/25878.php > -- Kind regards Nick
