April 2009 - Mpi-22 - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callbackwhen finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Sorry -- I didn't see this much-more-complete discussion before I replied to the other mail. I agree with most of Dick's points (e.g., an MPI will likely implement the same mechanism for COMM_SELF as it does for all other attribute destruction functionality). But I don't feel strongly one way or the other (apply the ordering just to COMM_SELF or to all attribute destruction). To me, the COMM_SELF attribute destruction stuff is already a hack -- elegant or not -- so adding ordering on it is no big deal. But like I said, I don't have strong feelings either way. On Mar 30, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Richard Treumann wrote: > I understand that the immediate motive is associated with the use of > attribute delete callbacks that occur when MPI_COMM_SELF is freed at > MPI_FINALIZE. > > That does not alter the fact that when MPI-2 imposed an implicit > free of MPI_COMM_SELF in MPI_FINALIZE to allow the use of attribute > delete functions for cleanup it involved a narrow extension of a > general MPI facility related to attributes and certain object types. > To allow attribute delete functions for all other communicators > (etc) to occur in arbitrary order while demanding that attribute > delete for MPI_COMM_SELF have a standards defined order is an > inelegant hack (in my opinion). Freeing MPI_COMM_SELF within > MPI_FINALIZE was a relatively elegant hack because it did not > introduce inconsistency. > > Add to that the probability that an MPI implementor is likely to use > the same algorithms for all attribute management rather than write > special case code for MPI_COMM_SELF leads me to argue that if a > defined order for attribute delete callbacks is adopted it should be > adopted broadly to maintain a consistent flavor across the standard. > > If an existing MPI implementation is currently deleting in some > other order and an application happens to work on that MPI only > because of that order, that application is at least non-portable and > probably should be considered buggy. If (or when) the implementation > adopts the fifo order for attribute deletes on "user_comm" it would > be clear that the implementation change had not "broken the user". > > A general mandate that attribute deletion callbacks on all object > types must occur in fifo order for an implementation to be MPI 2.2 > compliant should not break any "correct" MPI application and should > not be noticeably harder for implementors. > > It will require tracking down all places in the standard that > currently say the order is arbitrary so it is harder to get all > ducks in a row for the ticket. > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/28/2009 11:57:19 PM: > > > [image removed] > > > > Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > > finalize occurs > > > > Quincey Koziol > > > > to: > > > > mpi-22 > > > > 03/30/2009 09:28 AM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > > > Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400 > > > From: Richard Treumann <treumann_at_[hidden]> > > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering > callback > > > when finalize occurs > > > To: "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> > > > Message-ID: > > > <OFE2F8673A.D3771BE2- > > > ON85257585.005F95BC-85257585.005F9F47_at_[hidden]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > > > thing to > > > do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all > disposed > > > objects? > > > > The ticket is oriented to what happens at MPI_Finalize, really, > and > > not so much about MPI_COMM_SELF per se. The attribute callback on > > MPI_COMM_SELF was just the accepted way in the standard to "have > > something happen" when MPI_Finalize was called. > > > > Quincey > > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > > > > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 > PM: > > > > > >> [image removed] > > >> > > >> [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > > >> finalize > > > occurs > > >> > > >> Quincey Koziol > > >> > > >> to: > > >> > > >> mpi-22 > > >> > > >> 03/26/2009 12:54 PM: > > >> > > >> Sent by: > > >> > > >> mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > >> > > >> Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the > order > > >> that attribute delete callbacks should be made: > > >> > > >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Quincey > > >> > > >> [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ > > >> IBM] _______________________________________________ > > >> mpi-22 mailing list > > >> mpi-22_at_[hidden] > > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

FWIW, I think this ticket is only about clarifying an existing semantic -- the notion of adding callbacks on MPI_COMM_SELF dates back quite a ways (I think all the way back to MPI-1 somewhere? I don't remember). On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Richard Treumann wrote: > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > thing to do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all > disposed objects? > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 PM: > > > [image removed] > > > > [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > finalize occurs > > > > Quincey Koziol > > > > to: > > > > mpi-22 > > > > 03/26/2009 12:54 PM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > > > Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > > > Hi all, > > Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the > order > > that attribute delete callbacks should be made: > > > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 > > > > Thanks, > > Quincey > > > > [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ > > IBM] _______________________________________________ > > mpi-22 mailing list > > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > _______________________________________________ > 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 ticket #140: Add const Keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

Reminder: We need reviewers for ticket #140 for it to go through first reading in next week meeting. If you reviewed ticket #46, please review ticket #140 the diff between the two is quite trivial. If you were actively involved in discussing this ticket over email, please review and comment. Here's a list of ticket #46 reviewers: Darius Buntinas (thanks) Richard Graham Alexander Supalov Jesper Larsson Traeff Rajeev Thakur David Solt Torsten Hoefler Thanks, .Erez _____________________________________________ From: Erez Haba Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 11:52 AM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Please review ticket #140: Add const Keyword to the C bindings I opened a new ticket #140<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/140> for the "Add const Keyword to the C bindings" proposal instead of existing tickets #46<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46>, #129<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/129> & #130<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/130>. Ticket #140 differs from ticket #46 only by the applied amendments in tickets #129 and #130. Chapter authors please review this ticket before the next forum meeting. Thanks, .Erez *

1 0