On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> Ralph Castain wrote:
>> Not quite that simple, Patrick. Think of things like MPI_Sendrecv,
>> where the "send" call is below that of the user's code.
> You have a point, Ralph. Although, that would be 8 more lines to add
> to the user MPI code to define a MPI_Sendrecv macro :-)
> Seriously, this particular proposal is not the most flaming example
> of OpenMPI doing too much or going too far.
> I personally thought that the discussion about affinity was much
> more revealing in itself, like the part about in effect replacing
> the OS scheduler.
Ummm...though this is a separate discussion, please note that we never
said we would replace the OS scheduler. All we said was that OMPI
didn't currently detect and/or obey any OS scheduler binding
directives when binding processes.
This has now been corrected in the devel trunk, though it remains to
be fully tested.
The issue of what to do in the absence of any OS scheduler binding
directives is a topic for a separate discussion - which I believe we
already have partially had. :-)
> devel mailing list