Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Deadlocks with new (routed) orted launch algorithm
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-01 17:23:13


The only issue with that is it implies there is a param that can be adjusted - and there isn't. So it can confuse a user - or even a developer, as it did here.

I should think we wouldn't want MCA to automatically add any parameter. If the component doesn't register it, then it shouldn't exist. The MCA can just track a value without defining it as a visible param.

True?

On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> This is not a bug, it's a feature. :-)
>
> The MCA base automatically adds a priority MCA parameter for every component.
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 7:40 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid Sylvain is right, and we have a bug in ompi_info:
>>
>> MCA routed: parameter "routed_binomial_priority" (current value: <0>, data source: default value)
>> MCA routed: parameter "routed_cm_priority" (current value: <0>, data source: default value)
>> MCA routed: parameter "routed_direct_priority" (current value: <0>, data source: default value)
>> MCA routed: parameter "routed_linear_priority" (current value: <0>, data source: default value)
>> MCA routed: parameter "routed_radix_priority" (current value: <0>, data source: default value)
>> MCA routed: parameter "routed_slave_priority" (current value: <0>, data source: default value)
>>
>> Those params do not exist in the code base. I think we -assume- that every component will have an MCA param for setting priority, but most of the ORTE ones do not.
>>
>> We'll need to review ompi_info and fix this.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>> >
>> >> About my previous e-mail, I was wrong about all components having a 0
>> >> priority : it was based on default parameters reported by "ompi_info -a |
>> >> grep routed". It seems that the truth is not always in ompi_info ...
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ompi_info *does* always report the truth. Those values are what the run-time thinks they are currently set to -- either via environment, file, or whatever other mechanism. You might want to check your setup and see if they're being set via an unexpected mechanism...? Try using the "--parsable" switch and grep for "data_source" to see where values are getting set from.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeff Squyres
>> > jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devel mailing list
>> > devel_at_[hidden]
>> > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel