On May 24, 2011, at 4:42 AM, francoise.roch_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> CALL MPI_COMM_SIZE(id%COMM, id%NPROCS, IERR )
>> IF ( id%PAR .eq. 0 ) THEN
>> IF ( id%MYID .eq. MASTER ) THEN
>> color = MPI_UNDEFINED
>> ELSE
>> color = 0
>> END IF
>> CALL MPI_COMM_SPLIT( id%COMM, color, 0, id%COMM_NODES, IERR )
>> id%NSLAVES = id%NPROCS - 1
>> ELSE
>> CALL MPI_COMM_DUP( id%COMM, id%COMM_NODES, IERR )
>> id%NSLAVES = id%NPROCS
>> END IF
>>
>> IF (id%PAR .ne. 0 .or. id%MYID .NE. MASTER) THEN
>> CALL MPI_COMM_DUP( id%COMM_NODES, id%COMM_LOAD, IERR
>> ENDIF
> Actually, we look at the first case, that is id%par = 0. But the MPI_COMM_SPLIT routine is called by all the processes and creates a new communicator named "id%COMM_NODES". This communicator contains all the slaves, but not the master. The first MPI_COMM_DUP is not executed, the second one is executed on all the slaves nodes (id%MYID .NE. MASTER ), because the communicator is "id%COMM_NODES" and so implies all the processes of this communicator.
Hmm.
Are you sure that id%myid is relative to id%comm? I don't see its assignment in your code snipit.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}