Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: George Bosilca (bosilca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 10:55:38

This will benefit to several components: BTL/PTL, PML, having a common
set of functions will be really useful. I just have a request. If we
specify something like "--mca btl self,mvapi" I think it can be useful
to get them in the specified order. For some components (like the BTL)
it doesn't make any difference as we will use their internal priorities
to order them.For others we can use the order as an indication of the
user kind priority.


Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Short version:
> --------------
> I'd like to have a single, top-level MCA param for each framework that
> controls the "include" and "exclude" behavior of components. Something
> like:
> mpirun --mca btl self,mvapi ...
> would "include" self, mvapi (this actually already works for dynamic
> compiles). And:
> mpirun --mca btl !tcp
> would "exclude" tcp. This would be for all frameworks, at the
> mca_base_components_open() level, not during framework-specific
> selection. Hence, excluded / not-included components wouldn't even be
> opened (i.e., faster startup and smaller memory footprint).
> Longer version:
> ---------------
> Long, long ago, before Tim knew that I put in the <framework> MCA
> params into mca_base_components_open(), he added btl_base_include and
> btl_base_exclude to handle this kind of thing. I think that this
> should be handled at the MCA level itself -- there should be no need to
> have this kind of exclusion and inclusion at each framework.
> More specifically, the frameworks can call mca_base_components_open()
> just as they do now, and if the MCA parameter for that framework was
> specified, mca_base_components_open() will obey it and pass back a
> customized list of components back to the caller. The
> btl_base_[include|exclude] parameters (and others similar to it) can
> then be removed.
> Given that I already am on the hook to fix the static compile issue for
> 1.0, adding this functionality would be pretty trivial. Therefore, I'd
> like to do it for 1.0. It would also give us a nice, uniform way of
> including components across all frameworks.
> It's also shorter to type on the command line. :-)
> Comments?