Charm++ parallel programming system

[Fernando Stump <fernando.stump AT gmail.com>]

Phil,

The output from several "cout <<" along the code are not shuffled.

As if it is calling one  driver() first and then the other driver().  But I 
know that this is no a a strong evidence. I'm running a  small test problem 
so it may just be a coincidence.

I will let you know if I see the same pattern on a larger problem or if I 
don't get any speed up.

Thanks
Fernando 

" On Oct 7, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Phil Miller wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 14:22, Fernando Stump 
> <fernando.stump AT gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm running my ParFUMized version of my code at the taub cluster at uiuc.  
>> Each node contains 12 processors. I'm running in one node, with option 
>> +p2, but I have the feeling that the code is running in a single 
>> processor. My clue is that this is related with this "warning"
>> 
>> Charm++> Running on MPI version: 2.2 multi-thread support: 0 (max 
>> supported: -1)
> 
> This is a detail of the underlying MPI implementation. It doesn't mean
> Charm++ is running on only 1 thread.
> 
>> My question is:
>> 
>> Where it is the issue?  Is it on how MPI was compiled or on how charm++ 
>> was compiled or on how I call charmrun?
>> 
>> Here it is the full call.
>> 
>> [fstump2@taubh2
>>  io]$ ../yafeq/build/debug/yafeq/charmrun 
>> ../yafeq/build/debug/yafeq/pfem.out +p2
>> 
>> Running on 2 processors:  ../yafeq/build/debug/yafeq/pfem.out
>> charmrun>  /usr/bin/setarch x86_64 -R  mpirun -np 2  
>> ../yafeq/build/debug/yafeq/pfem.out
>> Charm++> Running on MPI version: 2.2 multi-thread support: 0 (max 
>> supported: -1)
>> Charm++> Running on 1 unique compute nodes (12-way SMP).
>> Charm++> Cpu topology info:
>> PE to node map: 0 0
>> Node to PE map:
>> Chip #0: 0 1
>> Charm++> cpu topology info is gathered in 0.003 seconds.
> 
> This output seems to indicate that things are working correctly. You
> got two cores, 0 and 1, on chip 0 of node 0. Did some other indication
> lead you to the conclusion that only one core was doing work?
> 
> Phil