Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

From: Brian Barrett (bbarrett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-14 13:06:37

On Jul 14, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

> Methinks we need to fill in a few blanks here, or make do with non-asm
> solutions. I don't know the problem space that well (being a
> maintainer
> rather than upstream developer) and am looking for guidance.

Either way is an option. There are really only a couple of functions
that have to be implemented:

   * atomic word-size compare and swap
   * memory barrier

We'll emulte atomic adds and spin-locks with compare and swap if not
directly implemented. The memory barrier functions have to exist,
even if they don't do anything. We require compare-and-swap for a
couple of pieces of code, which is why we lost our Sparc v8 support a
couple of releases ago.

> For what it's worth, lam (7.1.2, currently) us available on all build
> architectures for Debian, but it may not push the (hardware)
> envelope as
> hard.

Correct, LAM only had very limited ASM requirements (basically,
memory barrier on platforms that required it -- like PowerPC).