On Apr 28, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Scott Brozell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 04:34:08PM -0400, David A Case wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013, M. L. Dodson wrote:
>>>
>>> I can't see how openmp, on its own, would impact queue
>>> handling. It just implements multiple threads on the same CPU within the same
>>> process.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "the same cpu": an openmp job *could* be using
>> multiple cores at times when that conflicted with other expectations, either
>> from the user or from the queuing system.
>>
>> But I agree with the general point that we could/should do more to encourage
>> use of the openmp capabilities of cpptraj and nab. Certainly promoting it
>> more would be one strategy, short of making openmp the default.
>
> Our current openmp installation model is broken imo:
> http://archive.ambermd.org/201301/0431.html
>
> A simple fix is to follow our MPI model - openmp executables could have
> .OPENMP or .OMP suffixes. Users that know about openmp and want to use
> it will know what to do; users that don't know will be insulated from
> unintended consequences.
>
> A start for promoting openmp executables would be improvements to the manual
> and benchmarks that underscore openmp advantages.
>
> scott
>
> education
>
>
That sounds good to me.
Reviewing the whole thread, it seems I have (not meaning to) hijacked the
original thread. Apologies.
Anyone who wants to pursue this on the development list, please copy my
personal email. I am not a member of the development list.
Bud Dodson
--
M. L. Dodson
Business email: activesitedynamics-at-gmail-dot-com
Personal email: mldodson-at-comcast-dot-net
Gmail: mlesterdodson-at-gmail-dot-com
Phone: eight_three_two-five_63-386_one
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Sun Apr 28 2013 - 16:00:03 PDT
