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] RFC: Move of ompi_bitmap_t
From: Broto, Laurent G. (broto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-01 11:40:36

Hi folks,

I am Laurent Broto, a Rich Graham postdoc. I'm currently working on the BTL extraction with Greg Koenig and Rainer Keller.

At this time, I want to group all the *_bitmap function in only one layer.

Now, you know who I am :)

So, just one question. I had in my mind:
- adding a max_size in the opal_bitmap_t structure,
- at the init time, set this field with INT_MAX or whatever the type is _MAX,
- add a set_max_size functions to change the max_size,
- for each function needs this test, just do if( new_size < param->max_size) ...

I guess it is more efficient than the Jeff approach who is supposed to
- first test if the max size has been set,
- then ensure that the bitmap never grows beyond that size.

In the first approach we only do one test, in the second one, always one and sometimes two.

But may I miss something...

What do you think about this ?

-----Original Message-----
From: devel-bounces_at_[hidden] on behalf of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Sun 2/1/2009 7:37 AM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Move of ompi_bitmap_t
I just looked through both opal_bitmap_t and ompi_bitmap_t and I think  
that the only real difference is that in the ompi version, we check  
(in various places) that the size of the bitmap never grows beyond  
OMPI_FORTRAN_HANDLE_MAX; the opal version doesn't do these kind of  
size checks.
I think it would be fairly straightforward to:
- add generic checks into the opal version, perhaps by adding a new  
API call (opal_bitmap_set_max_size())
- if the max size has been set, then ensure that the bitmap never  
grows beyond that size, otherwise let it have the same behavior as  
today (grow without bound -- assumedly until malloc() fails)
It'll take a little care to ensure to merge the functionality  
correctly, but it is possible.  Once that is done, you can:
- remove the ompi_bitmap_t class
- s/ompi_bitmap/opal_bitmap/g in the OMPI layer
- add new calls to opal_bitmap_set_max_size(&bitmap,  
OMPI_FORTRAN_HANDLE_MAX) in the OMPI layer (should only be in a few  
places -- probably one for each MPI handle type...?  It's been so long  
since I've looked at that code that I don't remember offhand)
I'd generally be in favor of this because, although this is not a lot  
of repeated code, it *is* repeated code -- so cleaning it up and  
consolidating the non-Fortran stuff down in opal is not a Bad Thing.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> The history is simple. Originally, there was one bitmap_t in orte  
> that was also used in ompi. Then the folks working on Fortran found  
> that they had to put a limit in the bitmap code to avoid getting  
> values outside of Fortran's range. However, this introduced a  
> problem - if we had the limit in the orte version, then we limited  
> ourselves unnecessarily, and introduced some abstraction questions  
> since orte knows nothing about Fortran.
> So two were created. Then the orte_bitmap_t was blown away at a  
> later time when we removed the GPR as George felt it wasn't  
> necessary (which was true). It was later reborn when we needed it in  
> the routed system, but this time it was done in opal as others  
> indicated a potential more general use for that capability.
> The problem with uniting the two is that you either have to  
> introduce Fortran-based limits into opal (which messes up the non- 
> ompi uses), or deal with the Fortran limits in some other fashion.  
> Neither is particularly pleasant, though it could be done.
> I think it primarily is a question for the Fortran folks to address  
> - can they deal with Fortran limits in some other manner without  
> making the code unmanageable and/or taking a performance hit?
> Ralph
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Richard Graham wrote:
>> This should really be viewed as a code maintenance RFC.  The reason  
>> this
>> came up in the first place is because we are investigating the btl  
>> move, but
>> these are really two very distinct issues.  There are two bits of  
>> code that
>> have virtually the same functionality - they do have the same  
>> interface I am
>> told.  The question is, is there a good reason to keep two different
>> versions in the repository ?  Not knowing the history of why a second
>> version was created this is an inquiry.  Is there some performance
>> advantage, or some other advantage to having these two versions ?
>> Rich
>> On 1/30/09 3:23 PM, "Terry D. Dontje" <Terry.Dontje_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I second Brian's concern.  So unless this is just an announcement  
>>> that
>>> this is being done on a tmp branch only until everything is in  
>>> order I
>>> think we need further discussions.
>>> --td
>>> Brian Barrett wrote:
>>>> So once again, I bring up my objection of this entire line of  
>>>> moving
>>>> until such time as the entire process is properly mapped out.  I
>>>> believe it's premature to being moving around code in preparation  
>>>> for
>>>> a move that hasn't been proven viable yet.  Until there is concrete
>>>> evidence that such a move is possible, won't degrade application
>>>> performance, and does not make the code totally unmaintainable, I
>>>> believe that any related code changes should not be brought into  
>>>> the
>>>> trunk.
>>>> Brian
>>>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Rainer Keller wrote:
>>>>> On behalf of Laurent Broto
>>>>> RFC: Move of ompi_bitmap_t
>>>>> WHAT: Move ompi_bitmap_t into opal or onet-layer
>>>>> WHY: Remove dependency on ompi-layer.
>>>>> WHERE: ompi/class
>>>>> WHEN: Open MPI-1.4
>>>>> TIMEOUT: February 3, 2009.
>>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>> Details:
>>>>> WHY:
>>>>> The ompi_bitmap_t is being used in various places within
>>>>> opal/orte/ompi. With
>>>>> the proposed splitting of BTLs into a separate library, we are  
>>>>> currently
>>>>> investigating several of the differences between ompi/class/* and
>>>>> opal/class/*
>>>>> One of the items is the ompi_bitmap_t which is quite similar to  
>>>>> the
>>>>> opal_bitmap_t.
>>>>> The question is, whether we can remove favoring a solution just  
>>>>> in opal.
>>>>> WHAT:
>>>>> The data structures in the opal-version are the same,
>>>>> so is the interface,
>>>>> the implementation is *almost* the same....
>>>>> The difference is the Fortran handles ;-]!
>>>>> Maybe we're missing something but could we have a discussion, on  
>>>>> why
>>>>> Fortran
>>>>> sizes are playing a role here, and if this is a hard  
>>>>> requirement, how
>>>>> we could
>>>>> settle that into that current interface (possibly without a  
>>>>> notion of
>>>>> Fortran,
>>>>> but rather, set some upper limit that the bitmap may grow to?)
>>>>> With best regards,
>>>>> Laurent and Rainer
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Rainer Keller, PhD                  Tel: (865) 241-6293
>>>>> Oak Ridge National Lab          Fax: (865) 241-4811
>>>>> PO Box 2008 MS 6164           Email: keller_at_[hidden]
>>>>> Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008    AIM/Skype: rusraink
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
devel mailing list