December 2008 - Mpi-22 - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Dear Bronis, Thank you. This is the first time I hear that consistency weakens one's hand. Anyway, I'm not after veto power, nor I trying to "order" or "request" anything. When we agreed to be in on it, we agreed to the rules, and will consistently follow them. All I say is that from our point of view, the matter requires more discussion before it will be ready to go into the standard. Turning back to the substance from the pure textual review would be appropriate then. This is what I suggested (see below for exact wording). I would suggest that we turn from formally following the process to making sure what we put into the standard is good for MPI and the HPC community. Looking at the text alone won't help here I'm afraid. Brainstorming possible counter-examples may. If you disagree with this suggestion, so be it. I expressed my opinion. You expressed yours. I would suggest that now we let the Forum decide what to do about this matter. Best regards. Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Bronis R. de Supinski [mailto:bronis_at_[hidden]] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:50 PM To: Supalov, Alexander Cc: MPI 2.2 Subject: RE: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings Alexander: Re: > Thank you. Intel position on these issues has not changed a jot. We've > been consistently against them from day 1, and consistently voted them > down, for reasons I mentioned elsewhere. OK, then I guess Intel voted against. You were very much in the minority. > The new memory remapping scenario that highlights how detrimental the > proposed changes may be to the MPI implementations was added after the > first vote because this occurred to me after substantial contemplation. > This happens to all of us once in a while I guess. My response is that your scenario is not significantly different from the previous performance concerns. It does not fundamentally change the discussion. > In my opinion, continuing the work on wording is OK as long as the > substance is OK. In this case, I believe the substance is not OK. This > is why I'm suggesting to suspend the work on wording until we all agree > that the matter is OK in principle. Frankly, that you have confirmed Intel has previously voted against the issue makes your position weaker. You seem to want veto power but that is not how the rules work. You have one vote as a member institution. You lost the first round. You can continue to raise your objections. Perhaps that will lead to a different outcome for the second vote. However, you cannot veto further progress prior to that vote. > If you disagree, this will be your decision. I'm not going to be at the > next meeting and am using the medium available to me to promote our > point of view. I hope this is OK with the Forum at large. I stated you have the right to state your opinion. You do not have the right to order review of the issues suspended. In fact, simply requesting it is not appropriate. Bronis > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:25 PM > To: MPI 2.2 > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings > > > Alexander: > > Re: > > Pursuant to the discussion of #45 (send buffer access) that this #46 > > depends upon, I would suggest to suspend the review until we clear > > situation around #45. > > While it is within your rights to suggest that we "suspend > the review" of these items, I object to your timing. The > issues have already had a first vote. You can raise concerns > about them but I see no reason that we should cease to > make progress on the wording when the vast majority (I > don't recall if the vote was unanimous but it was not close) > have agreed to them. > > Perhaps more importantly, your objections have been discussed > from the first that Erez brought up the issues. Frankly, I > have not seen anything in your objections that changes the > extensive discussion on these issues. While it may be that > you have changed your position (and Intel's?) on them, I > strongly doubt that others will be convinced. > > In my opinion, Erez should definitely proceed with the > reviews. If you want to object to the solutions, you will > have an opportunity when the issues come up for their second > vote the week after next. > > Bronis > > > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > Alexander > > > > ________________________________ > > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba > > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:04 PM > > To: MPI 2.2 > > Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings > > > > This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated. :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct). > > > > Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter) > > > > Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication > > Chapter 4: Datatypes > > Chapter 5: Collective Communication > > Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching > > Chapter 7: Process Topologies > > Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management > > Chapter 9: The Info Object > > Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management > > Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication > > Chapter 13: I/O > > Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions > > Chapter 16: Language Bindings > > > > > > Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. > > > > Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https:// svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46 > > > > Thanks, > > .Erez > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Intel GmbH > > Dornacher Strasse 1 > > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Alexander: Re: > Thank you. Intel position on these issues has not changed a jot. We've > been consistently against them from day 1, and consistently voted them > down, for reasons I mentioned elsewhere. OK, then I guess Intel voted against. You were very much in the minority. > The new memory remapping scenario that highlights how detrimental the > proposed changes may be to the MPI implementations was added after the > first vote because this occurred to me after substantial contemplation. > This happens to all of us once in a while I guess. My response is that your scenario is not significantly different from the previous performance concerns. It does not fundamentally change the discussion. > In my opinion, continuing the work on wording is OK as long as the > substance is OK. In this case, I believe the substance is not OK. This > is why I'm suggesting to suspend the work on wording until we all agree > that the matter is OK in principle. Frankly, that you have confirmed Intel has previously voted against the issue makes your position weaker. You seem to want veto power but that is not how the rules work. You have one vote as a member institution. You lost the first round. You can continue to raise your objections. Perhaps that will lead to a different outcome for the second vote. However, you cannot veto further progress prior to that vote. > If you disagree, this will be your decision. I'm not going to be at the > next meeting and am using the medium available to me to promote our > point of view. I hope this is OK with the Forum at large. I stated you have the right to state your opinion. You do not have the right to order review of the issues suspended. In fact, simply requesting it is not appropriate. Bronis > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:25 PM > To: MPI 2.2 > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings > > > Alexander: > > Re: > > Pursuant to the discussion of #45 (send buffer access) that this #46 > > depends upon, I would suggest to suspend the review until we clear > > situation around #45. > > While it is within your rights to suggest that we "suspend > the review" of these items, I object to your timing. The > issues have already had a first vote. You can raise concerns > about them but I see no reason that we should cease to > make progress on the wording when the vast majority (I > don't recall if the vote was unanimous but it was not close) > have agreed to them. > > Perhaps more importantly, your objections have been discussed > from the first that Erez brought up the issues. Frankly, I > have not seen anything in your objections that changes the > extensive discussion on these issues. While it may be that > you have changed your position (and Intel's?) on them, I > strongly doubt that others will be convinced. > > In my opinion, Erez should definitely proceed with the > reviews. If you want to object to the solutions, you will > have an opportunity when the issues come up for their second > vote the week after next. > > Bronis > > > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > Alexander > > > > ________________________________ > > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba > > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:04 PM > > To: MPI 2.2 > > Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings > > > > This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated. :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct). > > > > Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter) > > > > Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication > > Chapter 4: Datatypes > > Chapter 5: Collective Communication > > Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching > > Chapter 7: Process Topologies > > Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management > > Chapter 9: The Info Object > > Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management > > Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication > > Chapter 13: I/O > > Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions > > Chapter 16: Language Bindings > > > > > > Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. > > > > Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https:// svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46 > > > > Thanks, > > .Erez > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Intel GmbH > > Dornacher Strasse 1 > > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Thanks Alexander, I respectfully decline your proposal to suspend the review of these tickets. I don't see any specific reference wrt text in your comments; and you don't bring any new issue that has not been discussed before the 1st voting. Thus I don't see any reason to suspend their review. Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 4:19 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Dear Erez, Thank you. I reviewed the text and found that further polishing of its textual aspects should be suspended until the substance is clarified. I put a comment to this effect into the ticket, as well as into the dependent ticket #46. In my opinion, both tickets are not yet ready to go into the standard and should go into another round of contemplation of their possible repercussions. In both cases presumed application friendliness is traded for less freedom of implementation. Application developers who disregard the standard now will most likely continue to do this in the future, possibly in some other way. Restricting the freedom of implementation to make their life easier does not seem to be an attractive proposition to me. If any of the issues identified so far, or comparable issues we cannot fathom at the moment, surface up in one of the future HPC platforms and hinder MPI adoption or transition to MPI-2.2 there, we will have done disservice both to the MPI standard and to the community. I hope this will bear on the minds of those who're going to vote on these two items at the meeting. Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 12:28 AM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Dear Alexander, It is okay and encouraged for people to comment and argue on the proposals. You can add your comments to the ticket arguing your important points. The forum then consider that various points and vote on the proposal. However for the voting process we need people to review the text and confirm that it does not conflict with the standard and it is reasonable (from language pov) to be included in the standard. If we are willing to review the text and state that it valid for the standard, that would be great. If you have any comments on the text please send them to me. Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:26 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Dear Erez, Thank you. I'm afraid I would need to have it explained in more detail why review may not include arguments on the substance. If something in the proposal makes one think that the proposed matter may be detrimental to the MPI standard and its implementations, I consider it one's duty to point this out. Following up on your reply: the segfault situation you described will make an MPI compliant program break. Thus, the implementation will have to keep the send buffer mapped into the sending process address space. This is a limitation on the MPI implementation that should be taken into account during the voting. Another possibility that has been pointed out earlier was that the proposed change disallows byte swap and other send buffer conversions to be done in place. At least one historical MPI implementation was doing this to a great avail. Who knows what is going to happen in the future? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:18 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) I think that the idea is for the reviewers to check the text for any mistakes and compatibility with the existing text, rather than check for the validity of the proposal. The later as I recall is left for the MPI forum assembly. As for your question, I'm sure that you can answer it yourself. :) If the memory is still also mapped to the original process (as with shared memory) that everything is fine. If the memory is removed from the original process, than the app will get an access-violation fault. (if this system works on a page boundary, to take this action it needs to make sure that there are no other allocation on the same page) Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:05 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Hi, I'd like to review this proposal. Let's consider the following scenario: - In the MPI_Isend, MPI maps the send buffer into the address space of the receiving process. - In the matching MPI_Recv, the receiving process makes a copy of the mapped send buffer into the receive buffer. - Once the copy is complete, the send buffer is mapped back into the sender address space during the wait/test call. What will happen one tries to access the send buffer in between? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:48 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Dear Bronis, Thank you. Intel position on these issues has not changed a jot. We've been consistently against them from day 1, and consistently voted them down, for reasons I mentioned elsewhere. The new memory remapping scenario that highlights how detrimental the proposed changes may be to the MPI implementations was added after the first vote because this occurred to me after substantial contemplation. This happens to all of us once in a while I guess. In my opinion, continuing the work on wording is OK as long as the substance is OK. In this case, I believe the substance is not OK. This is why I'm suggesting to suspend the work on wording until we all agree that the matter is OK in principle. If you disagree, this will be your decision. I'm not going to be at the next meeting and am using the medium available to me to promote our point of view. I hope this is OK with the Forum at large. Best regards. Alexander -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:25 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings Alexander: Re: > Pursuant to the discussion of #45 (send buffer access) that this #46 > depends upon, I would suggest to suspend the review until we clear > situation around #45. While it is within your rights to suggest that we "suspend the review" of these items, I object to your timing. The issues have already had a first vote. You can raise concerns about them but I see no reason that we should cease to make progress on the wording when the vast majority (I don't recall if the vote was unanimous but it was not close) have agreed to them. Perhaps more importantly, your objections have been discussed from the first that Erez brought up the issues. Frankly, I have not seen anything in your objections that changes the extensive discussion on these issues. While it may be that you have changed your position (and Intel's?) on them, I strongly doubt that others will be convinced. In my opinion, Erez should definitely proceed with the reviews. If you want to object to the solutions, you will have an opportunity when the issues come up for their second vote the week after next. Bronis > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > ________________________________ > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:04 PM > To: MPI 2.2 > Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings > > This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated. :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct). > > Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter) > > Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication > Chapter 4: Datatypes > Chapter 5: Collective Communication > Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching > Chapter 7: Process Topologies > Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management > Chapter 9: The Info Object > Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management > Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication > Chapter 13: I/O > Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions > Chapter 16: Language Bindings > > > Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. > > Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46 > > Thanks, > .Erez > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > _______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Alexander: Re: > Pursuant to the discussion of #45 (send buffer access) that this #46 > depends upon, I would suggest to suspend the review until we clear > situation around #45. While it is within your rights to suggest that we "suspend the review" of these items, I object to your timing. The issues have already had a first vote. You can raise concerns about them but I see no reason that we should cease to make progress on the wording when the vast majority (I don't recall if the vote was unanimous but it was not close) have agreed to them. Perhaps more importantly, your objections have been discussed from the first that Erez brought up the issues. Frankly, I have not seen anything in your objections that changes the extensive discussion on these issues. While it may be that you have changed your position (and Intel's?) on them, I strongly doubt that others will be convinced. In my opinion, Erez should definitely proceed with the reviews. If you want to object to the solutions, you will have an opportunity when the issues come up for their second vote the week after next. Bronis > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > ________________________________ > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:04 PM > To: MPI 2.2 > Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings > > This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated. :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct). > > Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter) > > Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication > Chapter 4: Datatypes > Chapter 5: Collective Communication > Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching > Chapter 7: Process Topologies > Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management > Chapter 9: The Info Object > Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management > Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication > Chapter 13: I/O > Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions > Chapter 16: Language Bindings > > > Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. > > Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46 > > Thanks, > .Erez > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Dear Jeff, Thanks. How can one see that status? All statuses I can see are in the Active tickets and other query reports are "new" and "assigned". What do I miss here? Should the queries be updated globally for everybody to see your changes, or is this a matter of each individual? Next, how can I list all tickets that possibly await my review? I don't want to miss something just because I overlooked a request in my inbox. Filtering by the loosely formatted CC field may be tricky. Anyway, where is a description of the query mechanism for this ticket system? Third, I hope the Forum is OK with people volunteering to review certain tickets even if they are not explicitly invited by the authors. The way to express this would probably be to add one's address to the CC list, as suggested earlier by you. Finally, it may be helpful to bring all these "by-laws" in some system and write them down, so that everybody use the same conventions for similar actions. Best regards. Alexander -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 6:54 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders I have updated all of my tickets; I tried to pick reviewers who care about the particular topic, either because they commented on it, argued about it in Chicago, or otherwise are familiar with the topic. If I couldn't find names that fit any of those criteria, I tried to "spread the wealth" and pick random Forum attendee names. Sorry (but some of my tickets are trivial text changes; it shouldn't take you long to review). :-) I also updated most of my tickets to the "waiting for reviews" status (some already had their first reading, because the "need 4 reviews" rule came in after they had their 1st reading already), so you can easily see what tickets are waiting. Thanks. On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, William Gropp wrote: > Our next MPI 2.2 discussion is in just over a week, and we have a > lot to do. Please have a look at the wiki for the following (see https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/report > for the reports): > > 1) For your own tickets, make sure that they are up to date. If > reviewers are needed, please contact them and encourage them to > submit their reviews. If revised text is needed, please update the > text and if you would like early feedback, notify this list. > > 2) For items on which you are a reviewer (particularly MPI 2.1 > chapter authors), please review the relevant tickets. When you are > reviewing text, make sure that you are looking at the current MPI > 2.1 standard; check page and line numbers as well as the context to > ensure that the change is correct. > > 3) For other tickets, review them and raise any issues that you have > *now* so that we can start the discussion before our meeting. > > Thanks! > > Bill > > William Gropp > Deputy Director for Research > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies > Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems _______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

I have updated all of my tickets; I tried to pick reviewers who care about the particular topic, either because they commented on it, argued about it in Chicago, or otherwise are familiar with the topic. If I couldn't find names that fit any of those criteria, I tried to "spread the wealth" and pick random Forum attendee names. Sorry (but some of my tickets are trivial text changes; it shouldn't take you long to review). :-) I also updated most of my tickets to the "waiting for reviews" status (some already had their first reading, because the "need 4 reviews" rule came in after they had their 1st reading already), so you can easily see what tickets are waiting. Thanks. On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, William Gropp wrote: > Our next MPI 2.2 discussion is in just over a week, and we have a > lot to do. Please have a look at the wiki for the following (see https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/report > for the reports): > > 1) For your own tickets, make sure that they are up to date. If > reviewers are needed, please contact them and encourage them to > submit their reviews. If revised text is needed, please update the > text and if you would like early feedback, notify this list. > > 2) For items on which you are a reviewer (particularly MPI 2.1 > chapter authors), please review the relevant tickets. When you are > reviewing text, make sure that you are looking at the current MPI > 2.1 standard; check page and line numbers as well as the context to > ensure that the change is correct. > > 3) For other tickets, review them and raise any issues that you have > *now* so that we can start the discussion before our meeting. > > Thanks! > > Bill > > William Gropp > Deputy Director for Research > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies > Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Hi, Pursuant to the discussion of #45 (send buffer access) that this #46 depends upon, I would suggest to suspend the review until we clear situation around #45. Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:04 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated. :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct). Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter) Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 4: Datatypes Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching Chapter 7: Process Topologies Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management Chapter 9: The Info Object Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Chapter 13: I/O Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions Chapter 16: Language Bindings Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Dear Erez, Thank you. I reviewed the text and found that further polishing of its textual aspects should be suspended until the substance is clarified. I put a comment to this effect into the ticket, as well as into the dependent ticket #46. In my opinion, both tickets are not yet ready to go into the standard and should go into another round of contemplation of their possible repercussions. In both cases presumed application friendliness is traded for less freedom of implementation. Application developers who disregard the standard now will most likely continue to do this in the future, possibly in some other way. Restricting the freedom of implementation to make their life easier does not seem to be an attractive proposition to me. If any of the issues identified so far, or comparable issues we cannot fathom at the moment, surface up in one of the future HPC platforms and hinder MPI adoption or transition to MPI-2.2 there, we will have done disservice both to the MPI standard and to the community. I hope this will bear on the minds of those who're going to vote on these two items at the meeting. Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 12:28 AM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Dear Alexander, It is okay and encouraged for people to comment and argue on the proposals. You can add your comments to the ticket arguing your important points. The forum then consider that various points and vote on the proposal. However for the voting process we need people to review the text and confirm that it does not conflict with the standard and it is reasonable (from language pov) to be included in the standard. If we are willing to review the text and state that it valid for the standard, that would be great. If you have any comments on the text please send them to me. Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:26 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Dear Erez, Thank you. I'm afraid I would need to have it explained in more detail why review may not include arguments on the substance. If something in the proposal makes one think that the proposed matter may be detrimental to the MPI standard and its implementations, I consider it one's duty to point this out. Following up on your reply: the segfault situation you described will make an MPI compliant program break. Thus, the implementation will have to keep the send buffer mapped into the sending process address space. This is a limitation on the MPI implementation that should be taken into account during the voting. Another possibility that has been pointed out earlier was that the proposed change disallows byte swap and other send buffer conversions to be done in place. At least one historical MPI implementation was doing this to a great avail. Who knows what is going to happen in the future? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:18 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) I think that the idea is for the reviewers to check the text for any mistakes and compatibility with the existing text, rather than check for the validity of the proposal. The later as I recall is left for the MPI forum assembly. As for your question, I'm sure that you can answer it yourself. :) If the memory is still also mapped to the original process (as with shared memory) that everything is fine. If the memory is removed from the original process, than the app will get an access-violation fault. (if this system works on a page boundary, to take this action it needs to make sure that there are no other allocation on the same page) Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:05 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Hi, I'd like to review this proposal. Let's consider the following scenario: - In the MPI_Isend, MPI maps the send buffer into the address space of the receiving process. - In the matching MPI_Recv, the receiving process makes a copy of the mapped send buffer into the receive buffer. - Once the copy is complete, the send buffer is mapped back into the sender address space during the wait/test call. What will happen one tries to access the send buffer in between? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:48 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Thanks. Can the report queries be changed to show the ticket state and priority as well? This would provide visual cue to those looking for tickets waiting for review. -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:50 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders I sent this diagram of ticket states around shortly after the last meeting, but I didn't get any comments back. So perhaps it would be better to send it to a wider audience. According to this diagram, any ticket in the "Not ready" / "Forum feedback requested" / "Waiting for reviews" state could be waiting for reviews. Perhaps we need something better than this (i.e., a separate bit indicating that a ticket is awaiting reviews). On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Hi, > > It would be great to learn how to identify tickets that are up for > review in the first place. All colors and fields I can see in the > standard reports don't seem to help much in this. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > ] On Behalf Of William Gropp > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:07 PM > To: Bronis R. de Supinski; MPI 2.2 > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders > > As an immediate step, we can do the following: > > Authors of tickets that are ready for review should do the following: > (a) add a comment to the ticket with the names of the reviewers (the > relevant chapter author and 3 other volunteers) > (b) contact the reviewers to remind them > > Having a separate, searchable field would be nice, but this would > capture the data now. > > Bill > > On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > >> >> Bill and Jeff: >> >> It will be really useful if the tickets listed reviewers. In the >> least >> we need some way to map tickets to reviewers (I am thinking about >> chapter >> authors in particular), Could Jeff add a field (or fields) that the >> owner is responsible for completing that indicates the reviewers? >> >> As it is I am really unclear over what I am supposed to review. I am >> guessing there are at least one or two for my chapter... >> >> Bronis >> >> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, William Gropp wrote: >> >>> Our next MPI 2.2 discussion is in just over a week, and we have a >>> lot >>> to do. Please have a look at the wiki for the following (see https:// >>> svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/report >>> for the reports): >>> >>> 1) For your own tickets, make sure that they are up to date. If >>> reviewers are needed, please contact them and encourage them to >>> submit >>> their reviews. If revised text is needed, please update the text >>> and >>> if you would like early feedback, notify this list. >>> >>> 2) For items on which you are a reviewer (particularly MPI 2.1 >>> chapter >>> authors), please review the relevant tickets. When you are >>> reviewing >>> text, make sure that you are looking at the current MPI 2.1 >>> standard; >>> check page and line numbers as well as the context to ensure that >>> the >>> change is correct. >>> >>> 3) For other tickets, review them and raise any issues that you have >>> *now* so that we can start the discussion before our meeting. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Bill -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0