Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Remove async thread from openib BTL #491

Closed
jsquyres opened this issue Mar 24, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

Remove async thread from openib BTL #491

jsquyres opened this issue Mar 24, 2015 · 3 comments
Assignees
@hjelmn
Labels
enhancement
Milestone
Future

Comments

@jsquyres
Copy link
Member

The real solution to #490 is to remove the async thread from the openib BTL.
@jsquyres jsquyres added this to the Open MPI 1.9.0 milestone Mar 24, 2015
@jsquyres jsquyres mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2015
Closed
jsquyres added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 13, 2015
@jsquyres
configure.ac: don't call AC_C_INLINE or AC_C_RESTRICT
1029dea 
OMPI *requires* a C99 compiler, so we don't need the AC_C_INLINE or
AC_C_RESTRICT tests anymore (because the C99 compiler guarantees to
support them).  Indeed, in some cases (see #491),
AC_C_INLINE gets the wrong answer and defines `inline` to be empty,
which screws up some systems (e.g., OS X with clang).

As an added bonus, we get to get rid of a bunch of gcc 2.96-specific
code (!) in configure.ac.
jsquyres added a commit to jsquyres/ompi-release that referenced this issue Apr 13, 2015
@jsquyres
configure.ac: don't call AC_C_INLINE or AC_C_RESTRICT
2e4f0b0 
OMPI *requires* a C99 compiler, so we don't need the AC_C_INLINE or
AC_C_RESTRICT tests anymore (because the C99 compiler guarantees to
support them).  Indeed, in some cases (see open-mpi/ompi#491),
AC_C_INLINE gets the wrong answer and defines `inline` to be empty,
which screws up some systems (e.g., OS X with clang).

As an added bonus, we get to get rid of a bunch of gcc 2.96-specific
code (!) in configure.ac.

(cherry picked/adapted from commit open-mpi/ompi@1029dea)
bosilca pushed a commit to ICLDisco/ompi that referenced this issue May 1, 2015
@jsquyres @bosilca
configure.ac: don't call AC_C_INLINE or AC_C_RESTRICT
00ecf03 
OMPI *requires* a C99 compiler, so we don't need the AC_C_INLINE or
AC_C_RESTRICT tests anymore (because the C99 compiler guarantees to
support them).  Indeed, in some cases (see open-mpi#491),
AC_C_INLINE gets the wrong answer and defines `inline` to be empty,
which screws up some systems (e.g., OS X with clang).

As an added bonus, we get to get rid of a bunch of gcc 2.96-specific
code (!) in configure.ac.
bosilca pushed a commit to eddy16112/ompi that referenced this issue Jun 18, 2015
@jsquyres @bosilca
configure.ac: don't call AC_C_INLINE or AC_C_RESTRICT
8806e4b 
OMPI *requires* a C99 compiler, so we don't need the AC_C_INLINE or
AC_C_RESTRICT tests anymore (because the C99 compiler guarantees to
support them).  Indeed, in some cases (see open-mpi#491),
AC_C_INLINE gets the wrong answer and defines `inline` to be empty,
which screws up some systems (e.g., OS X with clang).

As an added bonus, we get to get rid of a bunch of gcc 2.96-specific
code (!) in configure.ac.
@jsquyres
Copy link
Member Author

@hjelmn is waiting for @rhc54 to create an OPAL progress thread (i.e., a separate libevent base than the one that is hooked to ompi_progress() / opal_progress(), which is for synchronous progress).

@jsquyres
Copy link
Member Author

jsquyres commented Oct 5, 2015

@hjelmn opal_progress_thread now exists on master -- did you want to tackle this one now?

@jsquyres jsquyres modified the milestones: Future, v2.0.0 May 16, 2016
jsquyres pushed a commit to jsquyres/ompi that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2016
Merge pull request open-mpi#491 from ggouaillardet/topic/v1.10/hcoll_…
acd1fa2 
…fca_configury

Topic/v1.10/hcoll fca configury
@awlauria
Copy link
Contributor

Openib btl is removed. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@hjelmn hjelmn

Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Future
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jsquyres @hjelmn @awlauria