I leave it to the thread subgroup to decide... Should we discuss on
the call tomorrow?
I don't have a strong opinion; I was just testing both because it was
easy to do so. If we want to concentrate on the trunk, I can adjust
my MTT setup.
On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Brian Barrett wrote:
> Yes, this is a known issue. I don't know -- are we trying to make
> threads work on the 1.2 branch, or just the trunk? I had thought
> just the trunk?
> On Jun 11, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Tim Prins wrote:
>> I had similar problems on the trunk, which was fixed by Brian with
>> Perhaps 1.2 needs something similar?
>> On Monday 11 June 2007 10:08:15 am Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>> Per the teleconf last week, I have started to revamp the Cisco MTT
>>> infrastructure to do simplistic thread testing. Specifically, I'm
>>> building the OMPI trunk and v1.2 branches with "--with-threads --
>>> I haven't switched this into my production MTT setup yet, but in the
>>> first trial runs, I'm noticing a segv in the test/threads/
>>> opal_condition program.
>>> It seems that in the thr1 test on the v1.2 branch, when it calls
>>> opal_progress() underneath the condition variable wait, at some
>>> in there current_base is getting to be NULL. Hence, the following
>>> segv's because the passed in value of "base" is NULL (event.c):
>>> opal_event_base_loop(struct event_base *base, int flags)
>>> const struct opal_eventop *evsel = base->evsel;
>>> Here's the full call stack:
>>> #0 0x0000002a955a020e in opal_event_base_loop (base=0x0, flags=5)
>>> at event.c:520
>>> #1 0x0000002a955a01f9 in opal_event_loop (flags=5) at event.c:514
>>> #2 0x0000002a95599111 in opal_progress () at runtime/
>>> #3 0x00000000004012c8 in opal_condition_wait (c=0x5025a0,
>>> at ../../opal/threads/condition.h:81
>>> #4 0x0000000000401146 in thr1_run (obj=0x503110) at
>>> #5 0x00000036e290610a in start_thread () from /lib64/tls/
>>> #6 0x00000036e1ec68c3 in clone () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6
>>> #7 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> This test seems to work fine on the trunk (at least, it didn't segv
>>> in my small number of trail runs).
>>> Is this a known problem in the 1.2 branch? Should I skip the thread
>>> testing on the 1.2 branch and concentrate on the trunk?
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list