You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 15, 2021. It is now read-only.
In my asynchronous implementation ( https://github.com/e-ago/CoMD-CUDA-Async ) using runs with parameters like "-e -x 80 -y 80 -z 80" with up to 16 process I noticed that after the first atom exchange function, the size of the communication buffers in the force exchange function never change; however the size is calculated again during each force exchange function call.
Therefore, after the first atom exchange, I always used the same buffer size and without having any crash.
Can this improvement be used in the most general case? (i.e. all the type of executions?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In my asynchronous implementation ( https://github.com/e-ago/CoMD-CUDA-Async ) using runs with parameters like "-e -x 80 -y 80 -z 80" with up to 16 process I noticed that after the first atom exchange function, the size of the communication buffers in the force exchange function never change; however the size is calculated again during each force exchange function call.
Therefore, after the first atom exchange, I always used the same buffer size and without having any crash.
Can this improvement be used in the most general case? (i.e. all the type of executions?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: