Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

From: Brian Barrett (bbarrett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 16:16:24

Mike -

In Open MPI 1.2, one-sided is implemented over point-to-point, so I
would expect it to be slower. This may or may not be addressed in a
future version of Open MPI (I would guess so, but don't want to
commit to it). Where you using multiple threads? If so, how?

On the good news, I think your call stack looked similar to what I
was seeing, so hopefully I can make some progress on a real solution.


On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Mike Houston wrote:

> Well, I've managed to get a working solution, but I'm not sure how
> I got
> there. I built a test case that looked like a nice simple version of
> what I was trying to do and it worked, so I moved the test code
> into my
> implementation and low and behold it works. I must have been doing
> something a little funky in the original pass, likely causing a stack
> smash somewhere or trying to do a get/put out of bounds.
> If I have any more problems, I'll let y'all know. I've tested pretty
> heavy usage up to 128 MPI processes across 16 nodes and things seem to
> be behaving. I did notice that single sided transfers seem to be a
> little slower than explicit send/recv, at least on GigE. Once I do
> some
> more testing, I'll bring things up on IB and see how things are going.
> -Mike
> Mike Houston wrote:
>> Brian Barrett wrote:
>>> On Mar 20, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Mike Houston wrote:
>>>> If I only do gets/puts, things seem to be working correctly with
>>>> version
>>>> 1.2. However, if I have a posted Irecv on the target node and
>>>> issue a
>>>> MPI_Get against that target, MPI_Test on the posed IRecv causes a
>>>> segfaults:
>>>> Anyone have suggestions? Sadly, I need to have IRecv's posted.
>>>> I'll
>>>> attempt to find a workaround, but it looks like the posed IRecv is
>>>> getting all the data of the MPI_Get from the other node. It's like
>>>> the
>>>> message tagging is getting ignored. I've never tried posting two
>>>> different IRecv's with different message tags either...
>>> Hi Mike -
>>> I've spent some time this afternoon looking at the problem and have
>>> some ideas on what could be happening. I don't think it's a data
>>> mismatch (the data intended for the IRecv getting delivered to the
>>> Get), but more a problem with the call to MPI_Test perturbing the
>>> progress flow of the one-sided engine. I can see one or two places
>>> where it's possible this could happen, although I'm having trouble
>>> replicating the problem with any test case I can write. Is it
>>> possible for you to share the code causing the problem (or some
>>> small
>>> test case)? It would make me feel considerably better if I could
>>> really understand the conditions required to end up in a seg fault
>>> state.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Brian
>> Well, I can give you a linux x86 binary if that would do it. The
>> code
>> is huge as it's part of a much larger system, so there is no such
>> thing
>> as a simple case at the moment, and the code is in pieces an largely
>> unrunnable now with all the hacking...
>> I basically have one thread spinning on an MPI_Test on a posted IRecv
>> while being used as the target to the MPI_Get. I'll see if I can
>> hack
>> together a simple version that breaks late tonight. I've just played
>> with posting a send to that IRecv, issuing the MPI_Get,
>> handshaking and
>> then posting another IRecv and the MPI_Test continues to eat it,
>> but in
>> a memcpy:
>> #0 0x001c068c in memcpy () from /lib/
>> #1 0x00e412d9 in ompi_convertor_pack (pConv=0x83c1198, iov=0xa0,
>> out_size=0xaffc1fd8, max_data=0xaffc1fdc) at convertor.c:254
>> #2 0x00ea265d in ompi_osc_pt2pt_replyreq_send (module=0x856e668,
>> replyreq=0x83c1180) at osc_pt2pt_data_move.c:411
>> #3 0x00ea0ebe in ompi_osc_pt2pt_component_fragment_cb
>> (pt2pt_buffer=0x8573380) at osc_pt2pt_component.c:582
>> #4 0x00ea1389 in ompi_osc_pt2pt_progress () at
>> osc_pt2pt_component.c:769
>> #5 0x00aa3019 in opal_progress () at runtime/opal_progress.c:288
>> #6 0x00ea59e5 in ompi_osc_pt2pt_passive_unlock (module=0x856e668,
>> origin=1, count=1) at osc_pt2pt_sync.c:60
>> #7 0x00ea0cd2 in ompi_osc_pt2pt_component_fragment_cb
>> (pt2pt_buffer=0x856f300) at osc_pt2pt_component.c:688
>> #8 0x00ea1389 in ompi_osc_pt2pt_progress () at
>> osc_pt2pt_component.c:769
>> #9 0x00aa3019 in opal_progress () at runtime/opal_progress.c:288
>> #10 0x00e33f05 in ompi_request_test (rptr=0xaffc2430,
>> completed=0xaffc2434, status=0xaffc23fc) at request/req_test.c:82
>> #11 0x00e61770 in PMPI_Test (request=0xaffc2430,
>> completed=0xaffc2434,
>> status=0xaffc23fc) at ptest.c:52
>> -Mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]