On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:58:52 -0500
George Bosilca <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The self BTL is different from any other BTL. Any memcpy operation
> done by this BTL is automatically protected behind the matching
> logic, and therefore does not require extra thread safety protection.
> A mutex in the self BTL is mostly a copy/paste mistake.
>
So just to clarify, you don't just mean the data source and
destination memory being protected by the matching logic, but
also various linked lists such as self_frags_[eager|send|rdma]
are implicitly protected?
ie. Pretty much need an implicit guarantee that only one thread at a
time will ever call the btl self functions which manipulate those lists.
Regards,
Chris
> george.
>
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 17:57 , Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've noticed that the self btl does not do any locking. It has one
> > lock defined but its not actually used anywhere.
> >
> > So I'm just wondering if that is an oversight or if there is a
> > reason that we know for sure that there will never be concurrent
> > access to that particular btl with threads enabled?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > cyeoh_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
>
--
cyeoh_at_[hidden]
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}