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.