On Aug 21, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Graham, Richard L. wrote:
> I have several questions here - since process migration is an open
> research question,
> and there is more than one way to address the issue -
> - Is this being implemented as a component, so that other approaches
> can be used ?
Absolutely - we have several organizations involved, all with
> - If so, what sort of component interface is being considered ?
Still being determined. One reason for exposing the frameworks at this
time is that much of the ongoing effort may occur in separate, hidden
tmp branches for proprietary reasons. The eventual source code for
those components may well never be committed, but the frameworks need
to be in the system so that MCA will pickup the binary modules.
I deliberately left the frameworks "inactive" so that changes in the
APIs can be done as the work progresses without impacting the OMPI
community. The participants need to develop a little further before we
fully understand what the APIs need to be - a little hard to openly
discuss them without exposing potentially proprietary algos. The hope
is that, as people develop their components, they can identify missing
needs in the API so at least that much can be safely communicated and
> - What is the impact (or expected impact) on the rest of the system ?
For anyone who doesn't explicitly build it and turn it on, nothing.
For those who do, there will be no impact on MPI procs themselves as
they won't load nor activate these frameworks. There will be an
increased orted footprint and activity level, which could potentially
reduce performance by stealing cycles from MPI procs - obviously, that
depends on #procs vs cores and other factors.
I'm speaking solely of the RTE impact and issues here, of course -
Josh would have to address the MPI perspective.
> On 8/20/09 6:57 PM, "Ralph Castain" <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hmmm...I'm afraid I cannot entirely substantiate your concerns.
> Everything compiles just fine for me under both Linux and OSX. True,
> the files are not completely instantiated on the trunk at this time,
> but they also are not activated on the trunk for precisely that
> Can you provide an example of where something isn't building? I can't
> find it on any platform available to me.
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>> I'm a little bit concerned about the commits stated below as their
>> quality doesn't match the usual quality standards of the trunk.
>> There are several issues: mostly empty files, names coming from
>> other frameworks, failure to compile on several platforms (including
>> Linux and MAC OS X). I'm more than happy to see research code in the
>> trunk, and I will be really interested to see the proof that
>> preemptive migration works. However, the quality of the trunk should
>> not suffer.
>> Moreover, we have mercurial and svn temporary repositories for such
>> kind of work. And we did force people in the past to work on
>> temporary branches before such large commits on the trunk.
>> Please reconsider your patches.
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list