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.
On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Iain Bason wrote:
> > But maybe Steve should try 1.3.2 instead? Does that have your
> > improvements in it?
> 1.3.2 has the single-queue implementation and automatic sizing of the sm
> mmap file, both intended to fix problems at large np. At np=2, you
> shouldn't expect to see much difference.
> >> And the slowdown doesn't seem to be observed by anyone other than
> >> Steve and his colleague?
> > It would be useful to know who else has compared these two revisions.
> I just ran Netpipe and found that it gave a comparable sm latency as
> other pingpong tests. So, in my mind, the question is why Steve sees
> latencies that are about 10 usec on a platform that can give 1 usec.
> There seems to be something tricky about reproducing that 10-usec
> slowdown. I have trouble buying that it's just, "sm latency degraded
> from 1 usec to 10 usec when we went from 1.2 to 1.3". If it were as
> simple as that, we would all have been aware of the performance
> regression. There is some other special ingredient here (other than
> OMPI rev) that we're missing.
Maybe it's not btl layer related at all. Could be something completely
different like maybe messed up processor affinity.