Charm++ parallel programming system

["Van Der Wijngaart, Rob F" <rob.f.van.der.wijngaart AT intel.com>]

Thanks, Phil! In the meantime Dave Kunzman (at Intel now, and collocated with me in Santa Clara!) started butting in on a separate thread. I have now built in this way to enable multi-threading:

./build charm++ mpi-linux-x86_64 ifort mpicxx smp -j8 -DMPICH_IGNORE_CXX_SEEK -DMPICH_SKIP_MPICXX

Now funny things start to happen, even before I specify your additional flags:

[rfvander@bar1 jacobi2d]$ ./charmrun +p1 +ppn4 ./jacobi2d 200                                                                                                                

p = 1 should be a multiple of ppn = 4

[rfvander@bar1 jacobi2d]$ ./charmrun +p4 +ppn4 ./jacobi2d 200                                                                                                                

 

Running on 1 processors:  +ppn4 ./jacobi2d 200

charmrun>  /usr/bin/setarch x86_64 -R  mpirun -np 1  +ppn4 ./jacobi2d 200

[proxy:0:0@bar1] HYDU_create_process (../../utils/launch/launch.c:590): execvp error on file +ppn4 (No such file or directory)

 

The first reported error is funny. It looks like a bug. The second apparently comes about because +ppn4 is passed to mpirun verbatim, which thus chokes (using “+ppn 4” gives the same result). If I change it to “–ppn 4”, mpirun is happy, but charm++ doesn’t realize I am asking for multiple threads. I guess you cannot have multiple threads and run them, too.

 

Rob

 

From: unmobile AT gmail.com [mailto:unmobile AT gmail.com] On Behalf Of Phil Miller
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Van Der Wijngaart, Rob F
Cc: charm AT cs.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: [charm] Problem building charm++ on Intel platform

 

Ooh, I see. I forgot you were on an MPI build of Charm++, rather than the IP-based network layer (net-* or netlrts-*) we normally use in development. The charmrun utility is different for each network layer, and I think only the net-* version of charmrun supports that option. On other layers, since it's not responsible for process launching, it has nothing to report.

The other flags I mentioned should be more helpful, though.