Re: [mpich-discuss] Affinity with MPICH_ASYNC_PROGRESS

On 2/23/13 8:21 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:

I think the only way for async progress to work well is to have fine-grain locking since of MPI, as is done in PAMID. Any implementation that resorts to fat-locking is probably better off without async progress unless the application is doing something really silly (like never calling MPI on a rank that is the target of MPI RMA).

Jeff, If processes are entering the MPI progress engine frequently enough that they are competing with the comm thread to get the (per-process, not per-node) library lock, the additional comm thread is probably not needed. ~Jim.