Josh Hursey wrote:
> Sif is also running the coll_hierarch component on some of those
> tests which has caused some additional problems. I don't know if that
> is related or not.
Indeed. Many of the MTT stack traces (for both 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 and that
have seg faults and call out mca_btl_sm.so) do involve collectives
and/or have mca_coll_hierarch.so in their stack traces. I could well
imagine this is the culprit, though I do not know for sure.
Ralph Castain wrote:
> Hmmm...Eugene, you need to be a tad less sensitive. Nobody was
> attempting to indict you or in any way attack you or your code.
Yes, I know, though thank you for saying so. I was overdoing the
defensive rhetoric trying to be funny, but I confess it's nervous
humor. There was stuff in the sm code that I couldn't see how it was
100% robust. Nevertheless, I let that style remain in the code with my
changes... perhaps even pushing it a little bit. My putbacks include a
comment or two to that effect. E.g.,
. I understand why the occasional failures that Jeff and Terry saw did
not hold up 1.3.1, but I'd really like to understand them and fix them.
But at 0.01% fail rate (<0.001% for me... I've never seen it in 100Ks of
runs), all I can do about etiology and fixes is speculate.
Okay, joke overdone and nervousness no longer funny. Indeed, annoying.
> Since we clearly see problems on sif, and Josh has indicated a
> willingness to help with debugging, this might be a place to start
> the investigation. If asked nicely, they might even be willing to
> grant access to the machine, if that would help.
Maybe a starting point would be running IU_Sif without coll_hierarch and
seeing where we stand.
And, again, my gut feel is that the failures are unrelated to the 0.01%
failures that Jeff and Terry were seeing.