[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bgl-discuss] NAN for mpi_wtime() ?
Yes - but this is about a 30 sec. elapsed time -- Sorry,
I forgot to mention that in the original email.
Paul
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Anthony Chan wrote:
>
> I think this timer bug is there ever since BGL arrives, a simple
> java timing code on the front-end node has similar problem.
>
> clog2TOslog2 -o tmp.slog2 tmp.clog2
> .....
> timeElapsed between 1 & 2 = 105 msec
> timeElapsed between 2 & 3 = -1130612245368 msec
>
> It has something to do with how long the 2nd timer runs, if it is
> short enough. It will work fine.
>
> But the MPI_Wtime() on the compute nodes seems to work fine,
> at least from MPE's respective.
>
> A.Chan
>
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Paul Fischer wrote:
>
> >
> > Does anyone have a clue why I should get NAN as a return
> > result for mpi_wtime ?
> >
> > I have the following code fragment:
> >
> > t0 = mpi_wtime()
> > gs_handle = fgs_init(glo_num,ntot,np)
> > t1 = mpi_wtime()
> > et = t1-t0
> > if (nid.eq.0) then
> > write(6,1) et,t0,t1,nx,ntot,ngv,np,gs_handle
> > 1 format('fgs_init A:',1p3e11.4,' seconds ',i4,4i10)
> > endif
> >
> > which produces:
> >
> > fgs_init A: -NAN 1.1306E+09 -NAN seconds 2 960 16320 128 2
> > fgs_init A: -NAN 1.1306E+09 -NAN seconds 4 7680 423360 128 3
> > fgs_init A: -NAN 1.1306E+09 -NAN seconds 6 25920 1944000 128 4
> > fgs_init A: -NAN 1.1306E+09 -NAN seconds 8 61440 5315520 128 5
> >
> > There is no problem w/ the first mpi_wtime() call, only w/ the second??
> >
> > Thanks -- Paul
> >
> >
> > - --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To add or remove yourself from this mailing list, use the 'notifyme'
> > command on any BGL machine. To remove: notifyme -n, to add: notifyme -y.
> >
> >
>
>
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
To add or remove yourself from this mailing list, use the 'notifyme'
command on any BGL machine. To remove: notifyme -n, to add: notifyme -y.