On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:44 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Excellent. Seems like several people have thought of this at the same
> time (I was pinged about this by the IB vendors).
> I know that others on the team have more experience in this area than I
> do, so I personally welcome all information. I've read a few papers on
> the topic (general/simplified consensus: memory and process affinity is
> good), but would appreciate any pointers to more material.
> After the theory, however, we need to decide on an implementation
> strategy. As Rich mentioned, we can do this all via MCA parameters, or
> perhaps via MPI_Info or MPI attributes. Although I'm not sure how much
> of this can be set ahead of time and what needs to be done on a
> per-thread basis, I'm assuming that each thread will need to make some
> kind of function call (if MPI is going to handle it, then it will need
> to be an MPI function call that triggers some magic under the covers).
> Any advice here from the Open MP community would also be appreciated...
Please keep in mind we need this to work for both MPI+OpenMP and MPI
+pthread hybrid apps.
> On Jul 18, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
> > We have currently Barbara Chapman from the University of Houston as a
> > guest scientist here at Stuttgart. Most of you might now, that Barbara
> > is working on compiler design and OpenMP issues. This afternoon she
> > dropped in my office and asked me, whether the Open MPI group has
> > thought/discussed processor affinity issues up to now (which we just
> > did
> > :-) ).
> > Anyway, I just wanted to point out, that various people from the OpenMP
> > community have been working/are still working on this issue, and that
> > it
> > might be interesting to exchange information and maybe coordinate the
> > approaches. I cc'ed Barbara therefore also on this email...