Does anyone have any clue about this? Thanks in advance. On 12 March 2014 14:40, Luiz Carlos da Costa Junior <[email protected]>wrote:

Dear Kenneth,

Thanks for your quick reply. I tested your suggestion and, unfortunately, this approach didn't work.

Question: when I call MPI_IPROBE it accounts also for the messages that were already received asynchronously?

Is there any way to know, for my list of mpi_requests (from my MPI_IRECV's), which ones are "opened" and which ones have messages?

Regards,

On 11 March 2014 17:00, Kenneth Raffenetti <[email protected]> wrote:

...

You could use MPI_Probe/MPI_Iprobe and pass in your "data" tag to test for any more pending messages.

Ken

On 03/11/2014 02:50 PM, Luiz Carlos da Costa Junior wrote:

...

Dear all,

I am all set with your suggestions and my program is working quite well without any "unexpected message" since then, thanks again.

However now I am facing a small problem I describe next.

My receiver process receives actually 2 types of messages (2 different tags):

* the basic tag means that the message is a "data message" ("data"

tag) that should be processed. * the second one means that the worker process is done and it will

send no more messages ("end_of_processing" tag).

Once all worker processes send their end_of_processing tag, the receiver process finishes its execution.

The problem I noticed is that some of the last messages sent by the worker processes were not being processed. I think the problem is related with the logic I am using with MPI_WAITANY in the receiver process. I am simply counting the number of end_of_processing messages received and if it reaches the number of worker processes, I finish the execution without checking if there are more messages to be received at the MPI_WAITANY queue.

As the order that messages arrive is not relevant for MPI_WAITANY I think that my logic forgets some of the messages at the end of the queue. Is this right?

Is there any way to check if there is any pending request to be processed?

Best regards, Luiz

On 16 January 2014 16:57, "Antonio J. Peña" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

A profiling of both of your codes would help to understand where the time is spent and the difference between them in terms of performance.

Antonio

On 01/16/2014 12:47 PM, Luiz Carlos da Costa Junior wrote:

...

Yes, I am comparing original x new implementation.

The original implementation is as follows.

c----------------------------------------------------------- ------------ subroutine my_receiver_original c ------------------------------------------------------------ ------ (...)

c Local c ----- integer*4 m_stat(MPI_STATUS_SIZE) character card*(zbuf) ! buffer for messages received

do while( keep_receiving ) call MPI_RECV(card, zbuf, MPI_CHARACTER, . MPI_ANY_SOURCE, M_RECCSV, MY_COMM, . m_stat, m_ierr )

c Process message: disk IO c --------------- <DO SOMETHING> if( SOMETHING_ELSE ) then keep_receiving = .false. end if end do

(...)

return end

Regards, Luiz

On 16 January 2014 16:19, Balaji, Pavan <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Luiz Carlos da Costa Junior <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > No, these failures don't occur all the time. I have a successful run (with my original implementation) which I am using as the base case for comparison.

What are the two cases you are comparing? Original implementation vs. new implementation? What's the original implementation?

-- Pavan

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] <mailto: [email protected]>

To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- Antonio J. Peña Postdoctoral Appointee Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 240, Of. 3148 Argonne, IL 60439-4847 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> www.mcs.anl.gov/~apenya <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~apenya>

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss