Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

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

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] openmpi (1.2.8 or above) and Intel composer XE 2011 (aka 12.0)
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-06 21:01:26

Done -- how's this:

On May 27, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Gus Correa wrote:

> Eugene Loh wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 4:32 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>> On May 27, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Robert Horton wrote:
>>>>> To be clear, if you explicitly list which BTLs to use, OMPI will only
>>>>> (try to) use exactly those and no others.
>>>> It might be worth putting the sm btl in the FAQ:
>>> Is this entry not clear enough?
>> I think his point is that the example in the ib-btl entry would be more helpful as a template for usage if it added sm. Why point users to a different FAQ entry (which we don't do anyhow) when three more characters ",sm" makes the ib-btl entry so much more helpful.
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]
> Hi Jeff, list
> I agree with Eugene and Robert.
> By all means, please add ",sm" to "openib,self" in:
> I am yet to see a situation where you want to run with openib and self,
> but exclude sm (except for testing, perhaps when memcpy is broken).
> Maybe that is what led Salvatore Podda think there was a
> "Law of Least Astonishment" behind the mca parameters syntax,
> which would insert "sm" automatically to the other two btl,
> which is not really the case.
> Like Salvatore, I've got confused by the mca parameter
> syntax in the past also.
> My recollection is that Jeff wrote the second
> FAQ to placate my whining in the list about
> to sm or not to sm.
> However, the second FAQ clarifies the mca parameter logic,
> along with the role of the "^" clause, and IMHO should be kept there:
> My two cents,
> Gus Correa
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]

Jeff Squyres
For corporate legal information go to: