Jumping in late (travelling this morning). I think this is the right
There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to
throw yourself at the ground and miss.
On May 8, 2009, at 9:45, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> 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
>>> 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
>> 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 mailing list