Parallel HDF5: Try fixing strict collective requirements of HDF5 >= 2.0#1862
Draft
franzpoeschel wants to merge 98 commits intoopenPMD:devfrom
Draft
Parallel HDF5: Try fixing strict collective requirements of HDF5 >= 2.0#1862franzpoeschel wants to merge 98 commits intoopenPMD:devfrom
franzpoeschel wants to merge 98 commits intoopenPMD:devfrom
Conversation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It seems that HDF5 has become quite a bit pickier about metadata definitions in parallel setups with versions 2.0 and 2.1, leading to hangups.
Earlier, it was enough to define them consistently across ranks, now we apparently have to keep the exact same order of operations.
This is bad for the Span API which runs internal flushes for structure setup.
resetDataset()flushParticlesPathandflushMeshesPathfunctions, these unnecessarily leaked attribute flushes into the structure setupresetDataset(). Best idea: add the new logic to a new API callcommitStructuralSetup()or so.defer_typecommitStructuralSetup()