My point was just that we support the current implementation of pthreads - not any old one.
Also, to clarify: Jeff actually tests to see what the thread library does. We only use the Linux kernel version when cross-compiling since we cannot, in that case, actually test the support. We know that old Linux kernels have the old implementation, so we exclude them. Anything else is hit-miss when cross-compiling.
On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> Sorry, I stated my facts backwards.
> CORRECTED facts:
> +The old "LinuxThreads" implementation is the one that gave DIFFERENT pids to each pthread.
> + "NPTL" is the current implementation of Pthreads for Linux, and the one giving a single pid shared by all pthreads.
> So, I hope Ralph's statement is similarly reversed, because "LinuxThreads" as not been maintained in years.
> On 3/15/2011 3:40 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>> I believe the test is intended strictly for Linux threads. I don't believe we have ever (intentionally) supported any other thread library in such environments.
>> I'll leave it to Jeff to decide if he feels this is an issue.
>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>>> I'd like to point out that it is libpthread and the arguments it passes to clone(), NOT the Linux kernel version, that is the determining factor (at least if you have a 2.6.x kernel). The "LinuxThreads" implementation of Pthreads will give the one-pid-to-rule-them all behavior, while the NPTL implementation gives unquie pids under any 2.6.x kernel and even w/ some 2.4.x kernels from Red Hat.
>>> I have encountered systems on which dynamic linking gave NPTL and static linking gave LinuxThreads. That is a "gottcha" that I am not certain Jeff and Ralph have taken into account.
>>> Note that I have no objection to "we don't support this", but fear that detection of that situation may be flawed.
>>> On 3/15/2011 2:14 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>> Hi folks
>>>> Jeff and I encountered a problem when cross-compiling OMPI for Linux. Turned out that we had an old test in the code that looked for threads to have different pids. Since it couldn't be tested when cross-compiling, the test simply assumed this was the case for Linux under those conditions - which broke the build for current Linux kernels.
>>>> Different pids for threads was last seen in the old RH 4 series (kernel 2.6.9 or so). Some code (e.g., waitpid) was also provided to support this unusual situation - this code was in fact broken when we updated the event library. So even if we were in an old kernel, the code base would neither compile nor run.
>>>> Rather than trying to continue to support these old kernels, we have removed all the stale code that was covered by OPAL_THREADS_HAVE_DIFFERENT_PIDS. This removed some complexity from a few PLM modules and removed the broken code.
>>>> Jeff modified the corresponding .m4 test so we now detect an older kernel, print out a nice "we don't support this" message (along with noting that earlier versions of OMPI do), and then abort the build.
>>>> If you know of some reason to restore support for old Linux kernels, and someone willing to do the work to "refresh" that support, please let us know.
>>>> Ralph& Jeff
>>>> devel mailing list
>>> Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove_at_[hidden]
>>> Future Technologies Group
>>> HPC Research Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
>>> devel mailing list
>> devel mailing list
> Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove_at_[hidden]
> Future Technologies Group
> HPC Research Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
> devel mailing list