https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830869
--- Comment #29 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #28)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #27)
Thanks for the review.
> Please add %global _docdir_fmt %{name}. Currently hpl-common has files in
> /usr/share/doc/hpl-common which is confusing and unnecessary.
>
Fixed
> Documentation should be in an unversioned directory.
> [
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs]
>
Fixed, it was because this review request is very very old, and in that good
old times, documentation was versioned :)
> Use %license for COPYRIGHT.
> [
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text]
>
Fixed, the same as previous, there was no %license when this review request
was submitted.
> The binary currently tries to open /etc/hpl/HPL.dat and segfaults. I think
> it should be patched to use the new location.
>
Please see previous discussion on HPL.dat location. I finally moved HPL.dat
to /usr/share/hpl, but I am not sure whether it is good thing to add a
fallback for HPL to read the file from there, probably it isn't.
Nevertheless it shouldn't coredump. I patched it to cleanly exit.
I don't see why it shouldn't. What about the following simpler patch:
--- a/testing/ptest/HPL_pdinfo.c
+++ b/testing/ptest/HPL_pdinfo.c
@@ -294,11 +294,12 @@
/*
* Open file and skip data file header
*/
- if( ( infp = fopen( "HPL.dat", "r" ) ) == NULL )
+ if( ( infp = fopen( "HPL.dat", "r" ) ) == NULL &&
+ ( infp = fopen( "/usr/share/hpl/HPL.dat", "r" ) ) == NULL)
{
HPL_pwarn( stderr, __LINE__, "HPL_pdinfo",
"cannot open file HPL.dat" );
- error = 1; goto label_error;
+ exit( 1 );
}
(void) fgets( line, HPL_LINE_MAX - 2, infp );
This way the package does something useful out-of-the-box, and gives a rough
test/benchmark of the mpi installation. If the user wants to customize, they
can provide their own HPL.dat file in $CWD.
> README.Fedora still refers to mpich2. It's mpich now.
>
Fixed and also updated regarding HPL.dat location.
hpl-README.Fedora still has old
contents ("mpich2").
> Shouldn't this be run in %check? It would test both mpi
implementations on
> all archs.
>
I am currently not sure. Did you mean running the HPL benchmark by hand over
all available implementations? And with which configuration? With the
supplied example HPL.dat? What number of processes to use? One? Is it good
thing to do?
Yes, that's what I'd do. Something like this:
%check
%{_openmpi_load}
mpirun -n 4 xhpl_openmpi
%{_openmpi_unload}
%{_mpich_load}
mpirun -n 4 xhpl_mpich
%{_mpich_unload}
This takes about two seconds on my machine. I guess it'd vary a lot between
architectures, but should not be more then maybe ten seconds anywhere. The
point is less to benchmark anything, but rather to test that it still runs at
all. I think 4 is a good number, even if compiling on one cpu: high enough to
test that things work, but does not consume undue resources.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component