Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

From: Brian Barrett (brbarret_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-15 17:40:27


On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 14:24 -0700, Tom Rosmond wrote:
> I am continuing to test the MPI-2 features of 1.1, and have run into
> some puzzling behavior. I wrote a simple F90 program to test 'mpi_put'
> and 'mpi_get' on a coordinate transformation problem on a two dual-core
> processor Opteron workstation running the PGI 6.1 compiler. The program
> runs correctly for a variety of problem sizes and processor counts.
>
> However, my main interest is a large global weather prediction model
> that has been running in production with 1-sided message passing on an
> SGI Origin 3000 for several years. This code does not run with OMPI
> 1-sided message passing. I have investigated the difference between this
> code and the test program and noticed a critical difference. Both
> programs call 'mpi_win_create' to create an integer 'handle' to the RMA
> window used by 'mpi_put' and 'mpi_get'. In the test program this
> 'handle' returns with a value of '1', but in the large code the 'handle'
> returns with value '0'. Subsequent synchronization calls to
> 'mpi_win_fence' succeed in the small program (error status eq 0), while
> in the large code they fail (error status ne 0), and the transfers fail
> also (no data is passed).
>
> Do you have any suggestions on what could cause this difference in
> behavior between the two codes, specifically why the 'handles' have
> different values? Are there any diagnostics I could produce that would
> provide information?

The difference in handle values is irrelevant to the failures you are
seeing. Our handle 0 is MPI_WIN_NULL, so you should never see that
returned from MPI_WIN_CREATE.

Unfortunately, when I wrote the one-sided implementation, I didn't add
useful debugging messages the user can enable. I can add some and make
a tarball, if you would be willing to give it a try. What error
messages are coming out of the large code?

By the way, just to make sure your expectations are set correctly, Open
MPI's one-sided performance in v1.1 and v1.2 is bad, as it's implemented
over the point-to-point engine. You're not going to get Origin-like
performance out of the current implementation.

Brian