No worries :)

2014-11-27 14:20 GMT+01:00 Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com>:

> Many thanks!
>
> Note that it's a holiday week here in the US -- I'm only on for a short
> time here this morning; I'll likely disappear again shortly until next
> week.  :-)
>
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Nick Papior Andersen <nickpap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/2014/11/25879.php
>
>
> --
> 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/2014/11/25880.php
>



-- 
Kind regards Nick

Reply via email to