BTW: in lam/mpi source code, what "MPI_COMM_SPAWN'ed processes" means?
Thanks!
Yuan
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Problem regarding Checkpoint/restart issue in LAM
> (Liu Xuezhao)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:24:44 +0800
>From: "Liu Xuezhao" <lxz_at_[hidden]>
>Subject: Re: [lam-devel] Problem regarding Checkpoint/restart issue in
> LAM
>To: LAM/MPI development issues <lam-devel_at_[hidden]>
>Message-ID: <20060107032512.A1833FB045_at_[hidden]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
>
>
> You are so kind and earnest, :)
> I think the 7.1.2 beta will be work. I will test it 2 days latter, if there are problems still with 7.1.2 beta I will report it to you.
> Thanks.
>
>======= 2006-01-06 11:45:00 Jeff Squyres wrote?=======
>
>
>
>>Yoinks; sorry, this is my fault for not noticing earlier. :-(
>>
>>I did my tests yesterday with the LAM subversion trunk -- *not*
>>7.1.1. Specifically, what you noted has been fixed on both the SVN
>>trunk and the 7.1.2 beta. Here's the note in the HISTORY file:
>>
>>- Fix a problem inadvertantly caused by bug 682: instead of trying to
>>rectify crmpi modules that are sent by MPI processes to the spawning
>>agent, simply disallow MPI_COMM_SPAWN'ed processes from being
>>checkpointable.
>>
>>So that code now actually reads:
>>
>> if (mpi_nparent == 0) {
>> if (lam_ssi_crmpi_base_available != NULL) {
>> module = (lam_ssi_module_t *) al_top
>>(lam_ssi_crmpi_base_available);
>> }
>> } else {
>> module = NULL;
>> }
>>
>>I totally forgot that we had fixed this in the 7.1.2 beta; mea culpa
>>for not identifying this earlier. :-(
>>
>>Can you try the 7.1.2 beta and see if that works for you?
>>
>> http://www.lam-mpi.org/beta/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
>
>
>
>
>End of lam-devel Digest, Vol 141, Issue 1
>*****************************************
>
>
|
