Brian W. Barrett wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
>> Any thoughts on this? Should we change it?
> Yes, we should change this (IMHO) :).
>> If so, who wants to be involved in the re-design? I'm pretty sure it
>> would require some modification of the paffinity framework, plus some
>> minor mods to the odls framework and (since you cannot bind a process
>> other than yourself) addition of a new small "proxy" script that
>> would bind-then-exec each process started by the orted (Eugene posted
>> a candidate on the user list, though we will have to deal with some
>> system-specific issues in it).
> I can't contribute a whole lot of time, but I'd be happy to lurk,
> offer advice, and write some small bits of code. But I definitely
> can't lead.
> Fist offering of opinion from me. I think we can avoid the "proxy"
> script by doing the binding after the fork but before the exec. This
> will definitely require minor changes to the odls and probably a bunch
> of changes to the paffinity framework. This will make things slightly
> less fragile than a script would, and yet get us what we want.
I'll have to talk with Len to see if Sun has any time to allocate to this.