On May 24, 2011, at 4:42 AM, francoise.r...@obs.ujf-grenoble.fr wrote: >> CALL MPI_COMM_SIZE(id%COMM, id%NPROCS, IERR ) >> IF ( id%PAR .eq. 0 ) THEN >> IF ( id%MYID .eq. MASTER ) THEN >> color = MPI_UNDEFINED >> ELSE >> color = 0 >> END IF >> CALL MPI_COMM_SPLIT( id%COMM, color, 0, id%COMM_NODES, IERR ) >> id%NSLAVES = id%NPROCS - 1 >> ELSE >> CALL MPI_COMM_DUP( id%COMM, id%COMM_NODES, IERR ) >> id%NSLAVES = id%NPROCS >> END IF >> >> IF (id%PAR .ne. 0 .or. id%MYID .NE. MASTER) THEN >> CALL MPI_COMM_DUP( id%COMM_NODES, id%COMM_LOAD, IERR >> ENDIF > Actually, we look at the first case, that is id%par = 0. But the > MPI_COMM_SPLIT routine is called by all the processes and creates a new > communicator named "id%COMM_NODES". This communicator contains all the > slaves, but not the master. The first MPI_COMM_DUP is not executed, the > second one is executed on all the slaves nodes (id%MYID .NE. MASTER ), > because the communicator is "id%COMM_NODES" and so implies all the processes > of this communicator.
Hmm. Are you sure that id%myid is relative to id%comm? I don't see its assignment in your code snipit. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
