From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60397) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dcb9K-00044M-79 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:40:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dcb9H-0002jJ-2C for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:40:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34524) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dcb9G-0002ie-Uw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:40:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dcb9G-0006hA-Ko for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:40:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#27850] gnu: mpi: openmpi: Don't enable thread-multiple Resent-Message-ID: From: ludovic.courtes@inria.fr (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <87wp6thqjc.fsf@i-ulialbion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <87379c4oxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87o9s0bhro.fsf@i-ulialbion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <87lgn3skmm.fsf@inria.fr> <87tw1r9sss.fsf@i-ulialbion.it.manchester.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:39:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87tw1r9sss.fsf@i-ulialbion.it.manchester.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message of "Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:06:11 +0100") Message-ID: <87bmnzxk50.fsf@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Dave Love Cc: 27850@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Dave, Dave Love skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> Dave Love skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> >> [...] >> >>>>> (arguments >>>>> `(#:configure-flags `("--enable-static" >>>>>=20=20 >>>>> - "--enable-mpi-thread-multiple" >>>> >>>> Should we upgrade our openmpi package instead of doing this? >>> >>> I don't know whether they've fixed all the breakage I knew about in >>> OMPI 2 or whether there's still any penalty from thread-multiple. 1.10 >>> seems fairly safe, but I don't have strong opinions if people think 2 is >>> solid. Apart from ABI incompatibility, I assume it has the usual >>> incompatibilities at the mpirun/MCA level, and that they aren't well >>> documented. >> >> ABI compatibility is normally not an issue with Guix, so I=E2=80=99d be = in favor >> of upgrading to 2.0.3. Would you like to do it? > > Maybe, but what about the non-ABI compatibility I expect there is? (I > don't know whether there's still any penalty from thread-multiple > anyhow; I guess not, as I see it's not the default.)=20 I propose this because you had written that the =E2=80=9Cperformance penalt= y for thread-multiple is supposed to be mitigated in the most recent openmpi.=E2= =80=9D If it=E2=80=99s not, then fine. > 2.1 probably also needs non-trivial work in figuring out whether it > still needs a bundled libevent, for instance. Sure, that=E2=80=99s packaging. :-) > If anyone's using it seriously, I'd have thought effort would be better > spent on support for SLURM (as it's in Guix) and supporting > high-performance fabrics (which I started on). You already mentioned openfabrics a couple of times I think. Mentioning it more won=E2=80=99t turn it into an actual package. :-) It=E2=80=99s on= my to-do list, I guess it=E2=80=99s on yours too, so we=E2=80=99ll get there. What do you have in mind for SLURM? As for =E2=80=9Cusing it seriously=E2=80=9D, I think this is a needlessly a= ggressive way to express your frustration. People *are* using Guix =E2=80=9Cseriously=E2= =80=9D in HPC already, but (1) different application domains emphasize different aspects of =E2=80=9CHPC=E2=80=9D, and (2) there=E2=80=99s on-going work to = improve Guix for HPC and your feedback is invaluable here. HTH, Ludo=E2=80=99.