Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: George Bosilca (bosilca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 11:11:12

There is something weird with this change, and the patch reflect it.
The new argument "order" come from the PML level and might be
MCA_BTL_NO_ORDER (which is kind of global) or BTL_OPENIB_LP_QP or
BTL_OPENIB_HP_QP (which are definitively Open IB related). Do you
really intend to let the PML knows about Open IB internal constants ?
If it's the case (which seems to be true from the following snippet
     if(MCA_BTL_NO_ORDER == order) {
         frag->base.order = BTL_OPENIB_LP_QP;
     } else {
         frag->base.order = order;
) I expect you to revise the patch in order to propose a generic
solution or I'll trigger a vote against the patch. I vote to be
backed out of the trunk as it export way to much knowledge from the
Open IB BTL into the PML layer.


PS: With Gleb changes the problem is the same. The following snippet
reflect exactly the same behavior as the original patch.

frag->base.order = order;
assert(frag->base.order != BTL_OPENIB_HP_QP);

On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> Hi Galen,
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:19:09AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
>>> With current code this is not the case. Order tag is set during a
>>> fragment
>>> allocation. It seems wrong according to your description. Attached
>>> patch fixes
>>> this. If no specific ordering tag is provided to allocation
>>> function order of
>>> the fragment is set to be MCA_BTL_NO_ORDER. After call to send/put/
>>> get order
>>> is set to whatever QP was used for communication. If order is set
>>> before send call
>>> it is used to choose QP.
>> I do set the order tag during allocation/prepare, but the defined
>> semantics are that the tag is only valid after send/put/get. We can
>> set them up any where we wish in the BTL, the PML however cannot rely
>> on anything until after the send/put/get call. So really this is an
>> issue of semantics versus implementation. The implementation I
>> believe does conform to the semantics as the upper layer (PML)
>> doesn't use the tag value until after a call to send/put/get.
>> I will look over the patch however, might make more sense to delay
>> setting the value until the actual send/put/get call.
> Have you had a chance to look over the patch?
> --
> Gleb.
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]

  • application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s