I think that's the way to go then - it also follows our "the user is
always right - even when they are wrong" philosophy. I'll probably
have to draw on others to help ensure that the paffinity modules all
Think I have enough now to start on this - probably middle of next week.
On May 8, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On May 8, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>> Actually, I was wondering (hot tub thought for the night) if the
>> paffinity system can't just tell us if the proc has been bound or
>> That would remove the need for YAP (i.e., yet another param).
> Yes, it can.
> What it can't tell, though, is who set it. So a user may have
> overridden the paffinity after main() starts but before MPI_INIT is
> But perhaps that's not a crime -- users can override the paffinity
> at their own risk (we actually have no way to preventing them from
> doing so). So perhaps just checking if affinity is already set is a
> "good enough" mechanism for the MPI_INIT-set-paffinity logic to
> determine whether it should set affinity itself or not.
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
> devel mailing list