On Aug 10, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Gus Correa wrote:
> Thank you for opening a ticket and taking care of this.
Sorry -- I missed your inline questions when I first read this mail...
> > That being said, we didn't previously find any correctness
> > issues with using an alignment of 1.
>
> Does it aff
Hi Jeff
Thank you for opening a ticket and taking care of this.
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Gus Correa wrote:
Still, the alignment under Intel may or may not be right.
And this may or may not explain the errors that Hugo has got.
FYI, the ompi_info from my OpenMPI 1.3.2
On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Gus Correa wrote:
> Still, the alignment under Intel may or may not be right.
> And this may or may not explain the errors that Hugo has got.
>
> FYI, the ompi_info from my OpenMPI 1.3.2 and 1.2.8
> report exactly the same as OpenMPI 1.4.2, namely
> Fort dbl prec size
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Åke Sandgren wrote:
> > Jeff: Is this correct?
>
> This is wrong, it should be 8 and alignement should be 8 even for intel.
> And i also see exactly the same thing.
Good catch!
I just fixed this in https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/23580 -- it
looks li
I also get 8 from "call MPI_Type_size(MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION, size,
mpierr)", but really I don't think this is the issue anymore. I mean I
checked on my school cluster where OpenMPI has also been compiled with
the intel64 compilers and "Fort dbl prec size:" also returns 4 but
unlike on my Mac the cod
Hi All
Martin Siegert wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 01:05:52PM -0700, Martin Siegert wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:19:43AM -0400, Gus Correa wrote:
Hugo Gagnon wrote:
Hi Gus,
Ompi_info --all lists its info regarding fortran right after C. In my
case:
Fort real size: 4
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 01:05:52PM -0700, Martin Siegert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:19:43AM -0400, Gus Correa wrote:
> > Hugo Gagnon wrote:
> >> Hi Gus,
> >> Ompi_info --all lists its info regarding fortran right after C. In my
> >> case:
> >> Fort real size: 4
> >> Fort
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:19:43AM -0400, Gus Correa wrote:
> Hugo Gagnon wrote:
>> Hi Gus,
>> Ompi_info --all lists its info regarding fortran right after C. In my
>> case:
>> Fort real size: 4
>> Fort real4 size: 4
>> Fort real8 size: 8
>> Fort real16 size: 16
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 11:48 -0400, Gus Correa wrote:
> Hi Hugo, Jeff, list
>
> Hugo: I think David Zhang's suggestion was to use
> MPI_REAL8 not MPI_REAL, instead of MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION in your
> MPI_Allreduce call.
>
> Still, to me it looks like OpenMPI is making double precision 4-byte
> long
Here they are.
--
Hugo Gagnon
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:01 -0400, "Jeff Squyres"
wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Gus Correa wrote:
>
> > I surely can send you the logs, but they're big.
> > Off the list perhaps?
>
> If they're still big when compressed, sure, send them to me off list.
>
On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Gus Correa wrote:
> I surely can send you the logs, but they're big.
> Off the list perhaps?
If they're still big when compressed, sure, send them to me off list.
But I think I'd be more interested to see Hugo's logs. :-)
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For co
Hi Jeff
I surely can send you the logs, but they're big.
Off the list perhaps?
Thanks,
Gus
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Gus Correa wrote:
Ompi_info --all lists its info regarding fortran right after C. In my
Ummm right... I should know that. I wrote ompi_info, aft
Hi Hugo, Jeff, list
Hugo: I think David Zhang's suggestion was to use
MPI_REAL8 not MPI_REAL, instead of MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION in your
MPI_Allreduce call.
Still, to me it looks like OpenMPI is making double precision 4-byte
long, which shorter than I expected it be (8 bytes),
at least when look
On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Gus Correa wrote:
> > Ompi_info --all lists its info regarding fortran right after C. In my
Ummm right... I should know that. I wrote ompi_info, after all. :-) I
ran "ompi_info -all | grep -i fortran" and didn't see the fortran info, and I
forgot that I put
Hugo Gagnon wrote:
Hi Gus,
Ompi_info --all lists its info regarding fortran right after C. In my
case:
Fort real size: 4
Fort real4 size: 4
Fort real8 size: 8
Fort real16 size: 16
Fort dbl prec size: 4
Does it make any sense to you?
Hi Hugo
No, dbl pre
I mean to write:
call mpi_allreduce(inside, outside, 5,mpi_real, mpi_double_precision,
mpi_comm_world, ierr)
--
Hugo Gagnon
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:33 -0400, "Hugo Gagnon"
wrote:
> And how do I know how big my data buffer is? I ran MPI_TYPE_EXTENT of
> And how do I know how big my data buffer
I installed with:
./configure --prefix=/opt/openmpi CC=icc CXX=icpc F77=ifort FC=ifort
make all install
I would gladly give you a corefile but I have no idea on to produce one,
I'm just an end user...
--
Hugo Gagnon
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:57 -0400, "Jeff Squyres"
wrote:
> I don't have the i
And how do I know how big my data buffer is? I ran MPI_TYPE_EXTENT of
And how do I know how big my data buffer is? I ran MPI_TYPE_EXTENT of
MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION and the result was 8. So I changed my program to:
1 program test
2
3 use mpi
4
5 implicit none
6
7
I don't have the intel compilers on my Mac, but I'm unable to replicate this
issue on Linux with the intel compilers v11.0.
Can you get a corefile to see a backtrace where it died in Open MPI's allreduce?
How exactly did you configure your Open MPI, and how exactly did you compile /
run your sa
On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Gus Correa wrote:
> Is there a simple way to check the number of bytes associated to each
> MPI basic type of OpenMPI on a specific machine (or machine+compiler)?
>
> Something that would come out easily, say, from ompi_info?
Not via ompi_info, but the MPI function M
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Hugo Gagnon wrote:
> I appreciate your replies but my question has to do with the function
> MPI_Allreduce of OpenMPI built on a Mac OSX 10.6 with ifort (intel
> fortran compiler).
The implication I was going for was that if you were using MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION
with
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 16:19 -0400, Gus Correa wrote:
> Hi Hugo, David, Jeff, Terry, Anton, list
>
> I suppose maybe we're guessing that somehow on Hugo's iMac
> MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION may not have as many bytes as dp = kind(1.d0),
> hence the segmentation fault on MPI_Allreduce.
>
> Question:
>
>
I did and it runs now, but the result is wrong: outside is still 1.d0,
2.d0, 3.d0, 4.d0, 5.d0
How can I make sure to compile OpenMPI so that datatypes such as
mpi_double_precision behave as they "should"?
Are there flags during the OpenMPI building process or something?
Thanks,
--
Hugo Gagnon
Hi Hugo, David, Jeff, Terry, Anton, list
I suppose maybe we're guessing that somehow on Hugo's iMac
MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION may not have as many bytes as dp = kind(1.d0),
hence the segmentation fault on MPI_Allreduce.
Question:
Is there a simple way to check the number of bytes associated to eac
Try mpi_real8 for the type in allreduce
On 7/26/10, Hugo Gagnon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When I compile and run this code snippet:
>
> 1 program test
> 2
> 3 use mpi
> 4
> 5 implicit none
> 6
> 7 integer :: ierr, nproc, myrank
> 8 integer, parameter :: d
I appreciate your replies but my question has to do with the function
MPI_Allreduce of OpenMPI built on a Mac OSX 10.6 with ifort (intel
fortran compiler).
--
Hugo Gagnon
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:23 +0100, "Anton Shterenlikht"
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:11:39AM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrot
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:11:39AM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Hugo Gagnon wrote:
>
> > 8 integer, parameter :: dp = kind(1.d0)
> > 9 real(kind=dp) :: inside(5), outside(5)
>
> I'm not a fortran expert -- is kind(1.d0) really double precision? A
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 08:11 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Hugo Gagnon wrote:
>
> > 8 integer, parameter :: dp = kind(1.d0)
> > 9 real(kind=dp) :: inside(5), outside(5)
>
> I'm not a fortran expert -- is kind(1.d0) really double precision? Accordin
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Hugo Gagnon wrote:
> 8 integer, parameter :: dp = kind(1.d0)
> 9 real(kind=dp) :: inside(5), outside(5)
I'm not a fortran expert -- is kind(1.d0) really double precision? According
to http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/g77/Kind-Notation.htm
29 matches
Mail list logo
