" The bottom line here is that from a causal point of view it would seem
that B should not impact the timings. Presumably, some other variable is
actually responsible here."
Could you explain it in more details for the second sentence. Thanks a lot.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Eugene Loh <eugene.loh_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Ah. The original code snipit you sent was:
>> if(rank == master) t1 = clock();
>> "code A";
>> if(rank == master) t2 = clock();
>> "code B";
>> Remember that the time that individual processes exit barrier is not
>> guaranteed to be uniform (indeed, it most likely *won't* be the same). MPI
>> only guarantees that a process will not exit until after all processes have
>> entered. So taking t2 after the barrier might be a bit misleading, and may
>> cause unexpected skew.
> The barrier exit times are not guaranteed to be uniform, but in practice
> this style of timing is often the best (or only practical) tool one has for
> measuring the collective performance of a group of processes.
> Code B *probably* has no effect on time spent between t1 and t2. But
>> extraneous effects might cause it to do so -- e.g., are you running in an
>> oversubscribed scenario? And so on.
> Right. The bottom line here is that from a causal point of view it would
> seem that B should not impact the timings. Presumably, some other variable
> is actually responsible here.
> users mailing list