This all sounds good to me!
On Apr 29, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:
> What: Add mca_base_select() and adjust frameworks & components to use
> Why: Consolidation of code for general goodness.
> Where: https://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/ompi/tmp-public/jjh-mca-play
> When: Code ready now. Documentation ready soon.
> Timeout: May 6, 2008 (After teleconf) [1 week]
> For a number of years a few developers have been talking about
> creating a MCA base component selection function. For various reasons
> this was never implemented. Recently I decided to give it a try.
> A base select function will allow Open MPI to provide completely
> consistent selection behavior for many of its frameworks (18 of 31 to
> be exact at the moment). The primary goal of this work is to improving
> code maintainability through code reuse. Other benefits also result
> such as a slightly smaller memory footprint.
> The mca_base_select() function represented the most commonly used
> logic for component selection: Select the one component with the
> highest priority and close all of the not selected components. This
> function can be found at the path below in the branch:
> To support this I had to formalize a query() function in the
> mca_base_component_t of the form:
> int mca_base_query_component_fn(mca_base_module_t **module, int
> This function is specified after the open and close component
> functions in this structure as to allow compatibility with frameworks
> that do not use the base selection logic. Frameworks that do *not* use
> this function are *not* effected by this commit. However, every
> component in the frameworks that use the mca_base_select function must
> adjust their component query function to fit that specified above.
> 18 frameworks in Open MPI have been changed. I have updated all of the
> components in the 18 frameworks available in the trunk on my branch.
> The effected frameworks are:
> - OPAL Carto
> - OPAL crs
> - OPAL maffinity
> - OPAL memchecker
> - OPAL paffinity
> - ORTE errmgr
> - ORTE ess
> - ORTE Filem
> - ORTE grpcomm
> - ORTE odls
> - ORTE pml
> - ORTE ras
> - ORTE rmaps
> - ORTE routed
> - ORTE snapc
> - OMPI crcp
> - OMPI dpm
> - OMPI pubsub
> There was a question of the memory footprint change as a result of
> this commit. I used 'pmap' to determine process memory footprint of a
> hello world MPI program. Static and Shared build numbers are below
> along with variations on launching locally and to a single node
> allocated by SLURM. All of this was on Indiana University's Odin
> machine. We compare against the trunk (r18276) representing the last
> SVN sync point of the branch.
> Process(shared)| Trunk | Branch | Diff (Improvement)
> mpirun (orted) | 39976K | 36828K | 3148K
> hello (0) | 229288K | 229268K | 20K
> hello (1) | 229288K | 229268K | 20K
> mpirun | 40032K | 37924K | 2108K
> orted | 34720K | 34660K | 60K
> hello (0) | 228404K | 228384K | 20K
> hello (1) | 228404K | 228384K | 20K
> Process(static)| Trunk | Branch | Diff (Improvement)
> mpirun (orted) | 21384K | 21372K | 12K
> hello (0) | 194000K | 193980K | 20K
> hello (1) | 194000K | 193980K | 20K
> mpirun | 21384K | 21372K | 12K
> orted | 21208K | 21196K | 12K
> hello (0) | 193116K | 193096K | 20K
> hello (1) | 193116K | 193096K | 20K
> As you can see there are some small memory footprint improvements on
> my branch that result from this work. The size of the Open MPI project
> shrinks a bit as well. This commit cuts between 3,500 and 2,000 lines
> of code (depending on how you count) so about a ~1% code shrink.
> The branch is stable in all of the testing I have done, but there are
> some platforms on which I cannot test. So please give this branch a
> try and let me know if you find any problems.
> devel mailing list