On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Brock Palen wrote:
> The allocation statement is ok:
> allocate(vec(vec_size,vec_per_proc*(size-1)))
>
> This allocates memory vec(32768, 2350)
So this allocates 32768 rows, each with 2350 columns -- all stored contiguously
in memory, in column-major order. Does the language/compiler *guarantee* that
the entire matrix is contiguous in memory? Or does it only guarantee that the
*columns* are contiguous in memory -- and there may be gaps between successive
columns?
2350 means you're running with 48 procs.
In the loop:
do irank=1,size-1
do ivec=1,vec_per_proc
write (6,*) 'irank=',irank,'ivec=',ivec
vec_ind=(irank-1)*vec_per_proc+ivec
call MPI_RECV( vec(1,vec_ind), vec_size, MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX, irank, &
vec_ind, MPI_COMM_WORLD, status, ierror)
This means that in the first iteration, you're calling:
irank = 1
ivec = 1
vec_ind = (47 - 1) * 50 + 1 =
call MPI_RECV(vec(1, 2301), 32768, ...)
And in the last iteration, you're calling:
irank = 47
ivec = 50
vec_ind = (47 - 1) * 50 + 50 =
call MPI_RECV(vec(1, 2350), 32768, ...)
That doesn't seem right. If I'm reading this right -- and I very well may not
be -- it looks like successive receives will be partially overlaying the
previous receive. Is that what you intended? Is MPI supposed to overflow the
columns properly? I can see how a problem might occur here if the columns are
not actually contiguous in memory...?
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
