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: Eliminate ompi/class/ompi_[circular_buffer_]fifo.h
From: Eugene Loh (Eugene.Loh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-12 17:58:17


Sorry, what's the connection? Are we talking about
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1791 ? Are you simply saying
that if I'm doing some sm BTL work, I should also look at 1791? I'm
trying to figure out if there's some more specific connection I'm missing.

Ralph Castain wrote:

> You might want to look at ticket #1791 while you are doing this -
> Brad added some valuable data earlier today.
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
>
>> Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>>> This should probably include the disclaimer that we talked about
>>> this extensively yesterday at the sm/btl meeting after the MPI
>>> Forum meeting in San Jose.
>>>
>>> Eugene has been working on new sm stuff (as he has posted), and we
>>> had a very productive meeting yesterday discussing what he has
>>> done and how to get it all into the trunk. Have a look at his
>>> slides at the bottom of this wiki page:
>>>
>>> https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/wiki/Feb09Meetingsjc
>>>
>>> Eugene will be replacing the current sm btl with a new one
>>
>>
>> Let's downgrade that statement. I intend to make a series of
>> putbacks to the current sm BTL to improve latency. I'm not so much
>> "replacing" the current BTL as doing some optimization work.
>>
>>> that uses a single queue and various other improvements. Hence,
>>> the current ompi_*fifo.h files will no longer be necessary.
>>> Additionally, we resolved the "abstraction break" issues that were
>>> discussed here on the list a little while ago -- we think all the
>>> improvements can be done in the current architecture without
>>> disrupting the abstraction barriers. This RFC is one step in the
>>> process; eliminate some no- longer-necessary kruft.
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Eugene Loh wrote:
>>>
>>>> RFC: Eliminate ompi/class/ompi_[circular_buffer_]fifo.h
>>>>
>>>> WHAT: Eliminate those two include files.
>>>>
>>>> WHY: These include files are only used by the sm BTL. They
>>>> are not generally usable. Further, the sm BTL will soon no
>>>> longer use them. The current FIFOs support only a single sender
>>>> each and we want multiple senders to be able to share a common
>>>> FIFO. The current FIFOs also can grow without bound, which is
>>>> complicated support that we don't think we need.
>>>>
>>>> WHERE: Two include files: ompi/class/ompi_[circular_buffer_]fifo.h
>>>>
>>>> WHEN: "Immediately". Intended for 1.3.x.
>>>>
>>>> TIMEOUT: February 20, 2009.
>>>