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.

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3 PML default choice
From: George Bosilca (bosilca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-13 20:36:27

That's pretty weird, but you're right. Here is the code that do
exactly what you state.

     } else if(strcmp(ompi_mtl_base_selected_component-
>mtl_version.mca_component_name, "psm") != 0) {
         /* if mtl is not PSM then back down priority, and require the
user to */
         /* specify pml cm directly if that is what they want
priority */
         /* of 1 is sufficient in that case as it is the only pml
that */
         /* will be considered */
         *priority = 1;


On Jan 13, 2009, at 20:31 , Brian Barrett wrote:

> George -
> I don't care what we end up doing, but what you state is wrong. We
> do not use the CM for all other MTLs by default. PSM is the *ONLY*
> MTL that will cause CM to be used by default. Portals still falls
> back to OB1 by default. Again, don't care, don't want to change,
> just want the documentation and current behavior to match.
> Brian
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>> This topic was raised on the mailing list quite a few times. There
>> is a major difference between the PSM and the MX support. For PSM
>> there is just an MTL, which makes everything a lot simpler. The
>> problem with MX is that we have an MTL and a BTL. In order to
>> figure out which one to use, we have to call the init function and
>> this function initialize MX. The MTL use the default values for
>> this, while the BTL give some hints to the MX library (about how to
>> behave based on the support level we want, i.e. such as who will
>> deal with shared memory or self communications). As there can be
>> only one MX initialization, as the MTL initialize first, the BTL
>> will always get a wrongly initialized MX library (which can
>> generate some performance problems).
>> What Brian describe is the best compromise we manage to find few
>> months ago. If you want to get the MX CM to run, you will have to
>> clearly specify on the command line --mca pml cm. All other MTL
>> will have the behavior described on the README.
>> george.
>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 20:18 , Brian Barrett wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
>>>> Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>>>> Gaah! I specifically asked Patrick and George about this and
>>>>> they said that the README text was fine. Grr...
>>>> When I looked at that time, I vaguely remember that _both_ PMLs
>>>> were initialized but CM was eventually used because it was the
>>>> last one. It looked broken, but it worked in the end (MTL was
>>>> used with CM PML). I don't know if that behavior changed since.
>>> I just tested 1.3rc4 with MX and it uses the btl by default. The
>>> reason is the cm init lowers the priority to 1 unless the MTL that
>>> loaded is psm, in which case it stays at the higher default of
>>> 30. It's a fairly easy fix, I think. But the last time this was
>>> discussed people in the group had objections to using the MTL by
>>> default with MX.
>>> Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]