Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Segmentation fault in oob_tcp.c of openmpi-1.7.4a1r29646
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-13 21:44:02


Why do it the hard way? I'll look at the FAQ because that definitely isn't a recommended thing to do - better to use -host to specify the subset, or just specify the desired mapping using all the various mappers we provide.

On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:39 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:

>
>
> Sorry for cross-post.
>
> Nodefile is very simple which consists of 8 lines:
>
> node08
> node08
> node08
> node08
> node08
> node08
> node08
> node08
>
> Therefore, NPROCS=8
>
> My aim is to modify the allocation as you pointed out. According to Openmpi
> FAQ,
> proper subset of the hosts allocated to the Torque / PBS Pro job should be
> allowed.
>
> tmishima
>
>> Please - can you answer my question on script2? What is the value of
> NPROCS?
>>
>> Why would you want to do it this way? Are you planning to modify the
> allocation?? That generally is a bad idea as it can confuse the system
>>
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 5:55 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since what I really want is to run script2 correctly, please let us
>>> concentrate script2.
>>>
>>> I'm not an expert of the inside of openmpi. What I can do is just
>>> obsabation
>>> from the outside. I doubt these lines are strange, especially the last
> one.
>>>
>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps:rr: mapping job [56581,1]
>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Starting with 1 nodes in list
>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Filtering thru apps
>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Retained 1 nodes in list
>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Removing node node08 slots 0 inuse
> 0
>>>
>>> These lines come from this part of orte_rmaps_base_get_target_nodes
>>> in rmaps_base_support_fns.c:
>>>
>>> } else if (node->slots <= node->slots_inuse &&
>>> (ORTE_MAPPING_NO_OVERSUBSCRIBE &
>>> ORTE_GET_MAPPING_DIRECTIVE(policy))) {
>>> /* remove the node as fully used */
>>> OPAL_OUTPUT_VERBOSE((5,
>>> orte_rmaps_base_framework.framework_output,
>>> "%s Removing node %s slots %d inuse
> %d",
>>> ORTE_NAME_PRINT(ORTE_PROC_MY_NAME),
>>> node->name, node->slots, node->
>>> slots_inuse));
>>> opal_list_remove_item(allocated_nodes, item);
>>> OBJ_RELEASE(item); /* "un-retain" it */
>>>
>>> I wonder why node->slots and node->slots_inuse is 0, which I can read
>>> from the above line "Removing node node08 slots 0 inuse 0".
>>>
>>> Or I'm not sure but
>>> "else if (node->slots <= node->slots_inuse &&" should be
>>> "else if (node->slots < node->slots_inuse &&" ?
>>>
>>> tmishima
>>>
>>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:43 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the node08 has 8 slots but the process I run is also 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> #PBS -l nodes=node08:ppn=8
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, I think it should allow this allocation. Is that right?
>>>>
>>>> Correct
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is why scritp1 works and script2 does not. They are
>>>>> almost same.
>>>>>
>>>>> #PBS -l nodes=node08:ppn=8
>>>>> export OMP_NUM_THREADS=1
>>>>> cd $PBS_O_WORKDIR
>>>>> cp $PBS_NODEFILE pbs_hosts
>>>>> NPROCS=`wc -l < pbs_hosts`
>>>>>
>>>>> #SCRITP1
>>>>> mpirun -report-bindings -bind-to core Myprog
>>>>>
>>>>> #SCRIPT2
>>>>> mpirun -machinefile pbs_hosts -np ${NPROCS} -report-bindings -bind-to
>>> core
>>>>
>>>> This version is not only reading the PBS allocation, but also invoking
>>> the hostfile filter on top of it. Different code path. I'll take a look
> -
>>> it should still match up assuming NPROCS=8. Any
>>>> possibility that it is a different number? I don't recall, but isn't
>>> there some extra lines in the nodefile - e.g., comments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Myprog
>>>>>
>>>>> tmishima
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess here's my confusion. If you are using only one node, and
> that
>>>>> node has 8 allocated slots, then we will not allow you to run more
> than
>>> 8
>>>>> processes on that node unless you specifically provide
>>>>>> the --oversubscribe flag. This is because you are operating in a
>>> managed
>>>>> environment (in this case, under Torque), and so we treat the
>>> allocation as
>>>>> "mandatory" by default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that is the issue here, in which case the system is
> behaving
>>> as
>>>>> it should.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the above accurate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with LAMA as you aren't using that mapper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many nodes are in this allocation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:06 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph, this is an additional information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the main part of output by adding "-mca rmaps_base_verbose
>>>>> 50".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] plm:base:setup_vm
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] plm:base:setup_vm creating
> map
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] plm:base:setup_vm only HNP in
>>>>>>>> allocation
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps: mapping job [56581,1]
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps: creating new map for job
> [56581,1]
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps:ppr: job [56581,1] not using ppr
>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] rmaps:seq mapping job
> [56581,1]
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps:seq: job [56581,1] not using seq
>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps:resilient: cannot perform initial
>>> map
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> job [56581,1] - no fault groups
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps:mindist: job [56581,1] not using
>>>>> mindist
>>>>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] mca:rmaps:rr: mapping job [56581,1]
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Starting with 1 nodes in list
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Filtering thru apps
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Retained 1 nodes in list
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:26952] [[56581,0],0] Removing node node08 slots 0
>>>>> inuse 0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From this result, I guess it's related to oversubscribe.
>>>>>>>> So I added "-oversubscribe" and rerun, then it worked well as show
>>>>> below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] [[56774,0],0] Starting with 1 nodes in list
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] [[56774,0],0] Filtering thru apps
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] [[56774,0],0] Retained 1 nodes in list
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] AVAILABLE NODES FOR MAPPING:
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] node: node08 daemon: 0
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] [[56774,0],0] Starting bookmark at node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] [[56774,0],0] Starting at node node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:rr: mapping by slot for job
>>> [56774,1]
>>>>>>>> slots 1 num_procs 8
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:rr:slot working node node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:rr:slot node node08 is full -
>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:rr:slot job [56774,1] is
>>>>> oversubscribed -
>>>>>>>> performing second pass
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:rr:slot working node node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:rr:slot adding up to 8 procs to
>>> node
>>>>>>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: computing vpids by slot for
>>> job
>>>>>>>> [56774,1]
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 0 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 1 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 2 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 3 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 4 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 5 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 6 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:27019] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 7 to node
>>> node08
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think something is wrong with treatment of oversubscription,
> which
>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> related to "#3893: LAMA mapper has problems"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tmishima
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...looks like we aren't getting your allocation. Can you
> rerun
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> add -mca ras_base_verbose 50?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:30 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is the output of "-mca plm_base_verbose 5".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Querying
> component
>>>>> [rsh]
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] [[INVALID],INVALID] plm:rsh_lookup on
>>>>>>>>>> agent /usr/bin/rsh path NULL
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Query of
> component
>>>>> [rsh]
>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>> priority to 10
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Querying
> component
>>>>>>>> [slurm]
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Skipping
> component
>>>>>>>> [slurm].
>>>>>>>>>> Query failed to return a module
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Querying
> component
>>>>> [tm]
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Query of
> component
>>>>> [tm]
>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>> priority to 75
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] mca:base:select:( plm) Selected
> component
>>>>> [tm]
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] plm:base:set_hnp_name: initial bias 23573
>>>>>>>> nodename
>>>>>>>>>> hash 85176670
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] plm:base:set_hnp_name: final jobfam 59480
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] [[59480,0],0] plm:base:receive start comm
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] [[59480,0],0] plm:base:setup_job
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] [[59480,0],0] plm:base:setup_vm
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] [[59480,0],0] plm:base:setup_vm creating
>>> map
>>>>>>>>>> [node08.cluster:23573] [[59480,0],0] plm:base:setup_vm only HNP
> in
>>>>>>>>>> allocation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> All nodes which are allocated for this job are already filled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here, openmpi's configuration is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ./configure \
>>>>>>>>>> --prefix=/home/mishima/opt/mpi/openmpi-1.7.4a1-pgi13.10 \
>>>>>>>>>> --with-tm \
>>>>>>>>>> --with-verbs \
>>>>>>>>>> --disable-ipv6 \
>>>>>>>>>> --disable-vt \
>>>>>>>>>> --enable-debug \
>>>>>>>>>> CC=pgcc CFLAGS="-tp k8-64e" \
>>>>>>>>>> CXX=pgCC CXXFLAGS="-tp k8-64e" \
>>>>>>>>>> F77=pgfortran FFLAGS="-tp k8-64e" \
>>>>>>>>>> FC=pgfortran FCFLAGS="-tp k8-64e"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okey, I can help you. Please give me some time to report the
>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tetsuya Mishima
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can try, but I have no way of testing Torque any more - so
> all
>>> I
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> is a code review. If you can build --enable-debug and add -mca
>>>>>>>>>>> plm_base_verbose 5 to your cmd line, I'd appreciate seeing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:58 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your quick response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to report one more regressive issue about Torque
>>> support
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> openmpi-1.7.4a1r29646, which might be related to "#3893: LAMA
>>>>> mapper
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has problems" I reported a few days ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The script below does not work with openmpi-1.7.4a1r29646,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> although it worked with openmpi-1.7.3 as I told you before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #PBS -l nodes=node08:ppn=8
>>>>>>>>>>>>> export OMP_NUM_THREADS=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cd $PBS_O_WORKDIR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cp $PBS_NODEFILE pbs_hosts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NPROCS=`wc -l < pbs_hosts`
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpirun -machinefile pbs_hosts -np ${NPROCS} -report-bindings
>>>>>>>> -bind-to
>>>>>>>>>>> core
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myprog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I drop "-machinefile pbs_hosts -np ${NPROCS} ", then it
>>> works
>>>>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this happens without lama request, I guess it's not the
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in lama itself. Anyway, please look into this issue as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tetsuya Mishima
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done - thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:35 PM, tmishima_at_[hidden]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear openmpi developers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got a segmentation fault in traial use of
>>>>> openmpi-1.7.4a1r29646
>>>>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PGI13.10 as shown below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mishima_at_manage testbed-openmpi-1.7.3]$ mpirun -np 4
>>>>>>>> -cpus-per-proc
>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -report-bindings mPre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage.cluster:23082] MCW rank 2 bound to socket 0[core 4
>>> [hwt
>>>>>>>> 0]],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> socket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0[core 5[hwt 0]]: [././././B/B][./././././.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage.cluster:23082] MCW rank 3 bound to socket 1[core 6
>>> [hwt
>>>>>>>> 0]],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> socket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1[core 7[hwt 0]]: [./././././.][B/B/./././.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage.cluster:23082] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0
>>> [hwt
>>>>>>>> 0]],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> socket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0[core 1[hwt 0]]: [B/B/./././.][./././././.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage.cluster:23082] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 2
>>> [hwt
>>>>>>>> 0]],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> socket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0[core 3[hwt 0]]: [././B/B/./.][./././././.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage:23082] *** Process received signal ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage:23082] Signal: Segmentation fault (11)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage:23082] Signal code: Address not mapped (1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage:23082] Failing at address: 0x34
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [manage:23082] *** End of error message ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mishima_at_manage testbed-openmpi-1.7.3]$ gdb mpirun
> core.23082
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNU gdb (GDB) CentOS (7.0.1-42.el5.centos.1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Core was generated by `mpirun -np 4 -cpus-per-proc 2
>>>>>>>>>> -report-bindings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mPre'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #0 0x00002b5f861c9c4f in recv_connect
>>> (mod=0x5f861ca20b00007f,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sd=32767,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hdr=0x1ca20b00007fff25) at ./oob_tcp.c:631
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 631 peer = OBJ_NEW(mca_oob_tcp_peer_t);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (gdb) where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #0 0x00002b5f861c9c4f in recv_connect
>>> (mod=0x5f861ca20b00007f,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sd=32767,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hdr=0x1ca20b00007fff25) at ./oob_tcp.c:631
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #1 0x00002b5f861ca20b in recv_handler (sd=1778385023,
>>>>>>>> flags=32767,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cbdata=0x8eb06a00007fff25) at ./oob_tcp.c:760
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #2 0x00002b5f848eb06a in event_process_active_single_queue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (base=0x5f848eb27000007f, activeq=0x848eb27000007fff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at ./event.c:1366
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #3 0x00002b5f848eb270 in event_process_active
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (base=0x5f848eb84900007f)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at ./event.c:1435
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #4 0x00002b5f848eb849 in opal_libevent2021_event_base_loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (base=0x4077a000007f, flags=32767) at ./event.c:1645
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #5 0x00000000004077a0 in orterun (argc=7,
>>> argv=0x7fff25bbd4a8)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at ./orterun.c:1030
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #6 0x00000000004067fb in main (argc=7,
> argv=0x7fff25bbd4a8)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at ./main.c:13
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (gdb) quit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The line 627 in orte/mca/oob/tcp/oob_tcp.c is apparently
>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes the segfault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 624 /* lookup the corresponding process
> */>>>>>>>>>>>>> 625 peer = mca_oob_tcp_peer_lookup(mod, &hdr->origin);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 626 if (NULL == peer) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 627 ui64 = (uint64_t*)(&peer->name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 628 opal_output_verbose(OOB_TCP_DEBUG_CONNECT,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orte_oob_base_framework.framework_output,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 629 "%s
>>> mca_oob_tcp_recv_connect:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection from new peer",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 630 ORTE_NAME_PRINT
>>>>>>>>>>> (ORTE_PROC_MY_NAME));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 631 peer = OBJ_NEW(mca_oob_tcp_peer_t);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 632 peer->mod = mod;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 633 peer->name = hdr->origin;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 634 peer->state = MCA_OOB_TCP_ACCEPTING;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 635 ui64 = (uint64_t*)(&peer->name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 636 if (OPAL_SUCCESS !=
>>>>> opal_hash_table_set_value_uint64
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (&mod->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peers, (*ui64), peer)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 637 OBJ_RELEASE(peer);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 638 return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 639 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please fix this mistake in the next release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tetsuya Mishima
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> users mailing list>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> users mailing list
>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> users mailing list
>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users