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] Revise paffinity method?
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-08 10:45:59

I think that's the way to go then - it also follows our "the user is
always right - even when they are wrong" philosophy. I'll probably
have to draw on others to help ensure that the paffinity modules all
report appropriately.

Think I have enough now to start on this - probably middle of next week.


On May 8, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On May 8, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>> Actually, I was wondering (hot tub thought for the night) if the
>> paffinity system can't just tell us if the proc has been bound or
>> not?
>> That would remove the need for YAP (i.e., yet another param).
> Yes, it can.
> What it can't tell, though, is who set it. So a user may have
> overridden the paffinity after main() starts but before MPI_INIT is
> invoked.
> But perhaps that's not a crime -- users can override the paffinity
> at their own risk (we actually have no way to preventing them from
> doing so). So perhaps just checking if affinity is already set is a
> "good enough" mechanism for the MPI_INIT-set-paffinity logic to
> determine whether it should set affinity itself or not.
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]