I was wondering if it would be possible to use the same scheduling for
"alltoallv" as for "alltoall". If one assumes the messages of roughly
the same size, then "alltoall" would not be an unreasonable
approximation for "alltoallv". As is, it appears that in v1.1
"alltoallv" is done via a bunch of "isend+irecv", while "alltoall" is a
bit more clever.
One could then also have a runtime flag to use this sort of
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around