Hi Jeff, thanks for your reply. We tried it and it still doesn't work... Alfio
2016-07-13 1:19 GMT+02:00 Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com>: > Alfio -- > > We just released Open MPI v2.0.0, with lots of MPI RMA fixes. Would you > mind testing there? > > > > On Jul 12, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Alfio Lazzaro <alfio.lazz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Dear OpenMPI developers, > > we found a strange behavior when using MPI-RMA passive target and > OpenMPI (versions 1.8.3 and 1.10.2). We don't see any problem when using > MPICH. > > > > This is a small example on what we want to do: > > > > =================== > > program rma_openmpi > > use mpi > > integer :: nproc, rank, ierr > > integer :: win, request, size > > INTEGER(kind=mpi_address_kind) :: size_aint, disp_aint > > integer, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: meta, recv > > > > call MPI_INIT(ierr) > > call MPI_COMM_SIZE(MPI_COMM_WORLD, nproc, ierr) > > call MPI_COMM_RANK(MPI_COMM_WORLD, rank, ierr) > > > > size=100 > > ALLOCATE(meta(size),recv(size)) > > meta(:) = rank > > recv(:) = -1 > > size_aint = size*4 > > > > call > MPI_WIN_CREATE(meta,size_aint,4,MPI_INFO_NULL,MPI_COMM_WORLD,win,ierr) > > call MPI_WIN_LOCK_ALL(MPI_MODE_NOCHECK, win, ierr) > > > > disp_aint = 0 > > CALL MPI_RGET(recv,size,MPI_INTEGER,MOD(rank+1,2),disp_aint,& > > size,MPI_INTEGER,win,request,ierr) > > IF (ierr .NE. 0) STOP "error mpi_rget" > > > > CALL MPI_WAIT(request,MPI_STATUS_IGNORE,ierr) > > IF (ierr .NE. 0) STOP "error mpi_wait" > > > > ! call MPI_Win_flush_all(win,ierr) > > print *,rank,"=",recv(1) > > > > call MPI_WIN_UNLOCK_ALL(win, ierr) > > call MPI_WIN_FREE(win,ierr) > > > > DEALLOCATE(meta) > > call MPI_FINALIZE(ierr) > > end program rma_openmpi > > > > =================== > > > > You can run with 2 ranks. > > As you can see it is a simple rget operation from the neighbor rank. > However, it seems that the communications doesn't complete after the > mpi_wait. Indeed we get: > > > > 0 = -1 > > 1 = -1 > > while it should be: > > > > 0 = 1 > > 1 = 0 > > > > The code works as we want by uncommenting the flush operation, but we > would expect the same behavior with such a synchronization. > > > > Thanks for your help! > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alfio > > > > _______________________________________________ > > users mailing list > > us...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2016/07/29648.php > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2016/07/29653.php > -- Alfio Lazzaro skype account: alfio.lazzaro Sito web: https://sites.google.com/site/alfiolazzaro/ email: alfio.lazz...@gmail.com (per messaggi a cui prometto di rispondere in qualche giorno, ma rispondo! :) )
