On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Jeffrey Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>> An mpool that is aware of local processes lru's will solve the problem in most cases (all that I have seen)
> I agree -- don't let words in my emails make you think otherwise. I think this will fix "most" problems, but undoubtedly, some will still occur.
> What's your timeline for having this ready -- should it go to 1.5.5, or 1.6?
> More specifically: if it's immanent, and can go to v1.5, then the openib message is irrelevant and should not be used (and backed out of the trunk). If it's going to take a little bit, I'm ok leaving the message in v1.5.5 for now.
I wrote the prototype yesterday (after finding that limiting the lru doesn't work for uGNI-- @256 pes we could only register ~1400 item instead of the 3600 max we saw @128). I should have a version ready for review next week and a final version by the end of the month.
BTW, can anyone tell me why each mpool defines mca_mpool_base_resources_t instead of defining mca_mpool_blah_resources_t. The current design makes it impossible to support more than one mpool in a btl. I can delete a bunch of code if I can make a btl fall back on the rdma mpool if leave_pinned is not set.