Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 12:03:41

I'm not sure I understand -- all frameworks have priorities for their

On Sep 23, 2005, at 11:55 AM, George Bosilca wrote:

> 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.
> Thanks,
> george.
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]

{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} The Open MPI Project