You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What I suggest is to optimize for the common case. In the common case we don’t need to call MPI_Comm_compare at all. Therefore, we can convert the code in PMPI functions to something like:
If(use_hack) {
If(comm___ == comm) Use resilient_comm;
Else Use comm;
} else {
MPI_Comm_compare(dup_of_input_comm, comm);
If(CONGRUENT) Use resilient_comm;
Else Use comm;
}
We can determine in Fenix_Init if use_hack is appropriate or not. For OpenMPI (and probably MPICH, once ULFM is implemented in it), use_hack will always be true. This would solve the AMR case in which many different comms are used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What I suggest is to optimize for the common case. In the common case we don’t need to call MPI_Comm_compare at all. Therefore, we can convert the code in PMPI functions to something like:
If(use_hack) {
If(comm___ == comm) Use resilient_comm;
Else Use comm;
} else {
MPI_Comm_compare(dup_of_input_comm, comm);
If(CONGRUENT) Use resilient_comm;
Else Use comm;
}
We can determine in Fenix_Init if use_hack is appropriate or not. For OpenMPI (and probably MPICH, once ULFM is implemented in it), use_hack will always be true. This would solve the AMR case in which many different comms are used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: