btl_openib_ib_mtu and btl_mvapi_ib_mtu MCA params by showing the valid
values what what they represent (got a question about this from Cisco
testing engineers).
This commit was SVN r10277.
UD is the Unreliable Datagram transport for Infiniband, specifically OpenIB. This BTL is derived from the existing openib BTL, which is RC (Reliable Connection) based.
Still a work in progress, as there is a lot of work left to do. Specifically, performance, scalability, and flow control need to be addressed.
Currently I'm playing around with different methods for handling receive buffers, as well as profiling to figure out where the time is going.
This commit was SVN r10271.
1) don't need tree if memory is just malloc'd
2) fix memory and free list leak..
3) deregister first and then free... doh..
This commit was SVN r10251.
Added a tree to track memory allocation from MPI_Alloc_mem, this allows us to
free the registrations in a sane fashion.. also should be faster..
This commit was SVN r10248.
support for progress threads, so we shouldn't build them or try to use
them when support for progress threads has been requested. The TCP, GM,
SELF, and SM BTLs should have progress thread support, so they aren't
disabled. The Portals BTL isn't compiled on platforms with threads,
so it doens't need to be updated.
This commit was SVN r10156.
Do this rather than the my_list pointer because we need to do some
things that are somewhat special because we pre-pin eager fragments but
not send fragments. Also makes a couple ideas I have slightly easier to
play around with.
This commit was SVN r10127.
Instead of figuring out which free list the fragment belongs to based on size
we simply store a pointer to the list which it belongs in the fragment.
This was reviewed by Brian and should hit all the branches.
This commit was SVN r10072.
Trying to remember what I did here.. eager/max messages should work now, no RDMA yet. A number of other fixes and cleanups.
I do know of two problems:
Bad stuff happens when flooded with send frags too quickly - the BTL doesn't handle flow control.
Certain IBM tests turn up a length assertion in the datatype engine - needs more investigation.
This commit was SVN r10070.
2. fix for MPI_Free_mem, was calling deregister but never called mpool_free.. so
we leaked memory. Still an open issue here though, if the memory is alloc'd
and the mpool doesn't create and cache a registration, we will never find the
mpool to free with.
This commit was SVN r9944.
derefence through it. It is legal for endpoint_addr to be NULL in the
destructor because if btl_tcp_add_procs() -> btl_tcp_proc_insert()
returns UNREACH, then endpoint_addr will be NULL and we'll OBJ_RELEASE
it.
This commit was SVN r9940.
apparently don't work properly: r9869, r9868 (sm btl alignment issues)
This commit was SVN r9936.
The following SVN revision numbers were found above:
r9868 --> open-mpi/ompi@9b985c3216
r9869 --> open-mpi/ompi@adedf511fb
easier to do event accounting that way
* greatly increase receive event and buffer sizes. We're still about half
of what Cray defaults to, so I don't feel bad about the increases
* Implement a pre-pinning optimization for eager fragments - will be
pinned on first use and left pinned for the life of the fragment
* Since we can't have two receive frag callbacks fired at the same time,
don't have receive free list - just keep one receive fragment in the
module. Saves a big free list and all that interaction.
This commit was SVN r9915.
things I found:
- Locking should prevent it from happening (I think), but there was a
race condition in the component progress -- a callback could be
triggered that would free the request before it was off the outstanding
requests list.
- When pulling a request off the component free list, make sure to
reinitialize the free_called state on the IO request. This was
what was causing Edgar's failures
- In the request cleanup code, pull the request out of the per-
component free list before returning to the free list. This
probably would cause asserts to fire, although it looks like
I wrote the loops such that it would have been memory safe if
the asserts didn't fire. Not really sure why I did that, but
let's try it again...
This should go to the v1.0 and v1.1 branches.
This commit was SVN r9913.
