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

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 14 May '09

14 May '09

Another question about this issue... Since all fortran values are passed by reference, does the MPI care if the callback function changes the EXTRA_STATE value? I see 2 choices: 1. The MPI copies the value of extra_state when MPI_*_CREATE_KEVAL is invoked to internal storage. This internal storage is passed to all the callbacks when invoked. If any of the callbacks change the value, then subsequent invocations of the callback get the changed value. 2. The MPI copies the value of extra_state when MPI_*_CREATE_KEVAL is invoked to internal storage. This internal storage is copied any time a callback is invoked; the copy is passed to the callback (and freed when the callback returns). In this way, the same EXTRA_STATE value that was originally passed to the keyval constructor will always be passed to any callbacks. What do current MPI implementations do? OMPI's development trunk has been updated to do #1; I'm wondering if it should do #2. On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > Ok, I'll file an MPI-3 ticket for this. > > (for everyone else on the 2.2 list wondering why you just got > blitzkrieged with a whole pile of emails on this topic: the listserver > sent all these mails to moderation because of the lengthy CC list. IU > just approved all the mails to go through this morning) > > > On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:40 AM, William Gropp wrote: > > > Yes, this is worth an ATI - the fact that we traded this much mail > on > > it is proof of that :) > > > > Thanks, Jeff. > > > > Bill > > > > On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > > > > Someone pointed out to me this morning that there's no restriction > > on > > > the value of EXTRA_STATE when CREATE_KEYVAL is invoked -- it may > > be an > > > expression, for example. I think that pretty much seals the deal > > that > > > #2 is the correct way. > > > > > > I think that this is worth an ATI in the text; does anyone > disagree? > > > I volunteer to write it up/make a 3.0 ticket (hey, first ticket > for > > > the Misc WG! :-) ) if no one disagrees. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Intel MPI (and most likely other MPICH2 derivatives) appears to > use > > >> method #2. > > >> > > >> Best regards. > > >> > > >> Alexander > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] > > >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:19 PM > > >> To: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; > > Hubert > > >> Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan > > Balaji; > > >> Supalov, Alexander; Bronis de Supinski; David Solt; Hans > Westgaard > > >> Ry; Håkon Bugge > > >> Subject: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? > > >> > > >> This is related to -- but different from -- MPI 2.2 ticket #55 > > >> ("MPI-2.1 Cross-language attribute example is wrong"). > Explicitly > > >> adding all the #55 CC members to this mail, plus a few others. > > >> > > >> I cannot find any text in MPI-2.1 (e.g., p223-225) describing > > >> specific > > >> behavior regarding the EXTRA_STATE arguments passed to the > Fortran > > >> keyval copy and delete functions (both the ADDRESS_KIND and > > >> deprecated > > >> flavors). I see two choices: > > >> > > >> 1. pass the user's original EXTRA_STATE argument by reference to > > the > > >> callbacks, or > > >> 2. copy the user's original EXTRA_STATE into internal MPI storage > > and > > >> pass *that* value by reference to the callbacks > > >> > > >> ==> Open MPI currently does #1. What do other implementations > do? > > >> > > >> I raise this issue because the text does not indicate which way > is > > >> right. And I just ran across an old Sun test that assumed #2. > But > > >> our internal copy of the Intel MPI tests assume #1 (to be fair: I > > >> have > > >> no idea if the Intel tests originally assumed #2 and we changed > > them > > >> to #1 over time). Indeed, #2 is actually in-line with the > > philosophy > > >> of storing attribute values in internal MPI storage. E.g.: > > >> > > >> INTEGER foo = 4 > > >> INTEGER bar > > >> CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, foo, ierr) > > >> foo = 5 > > >> CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, bar, flag, ierr) > > >> > > >> bar should equal 4, not 5 (right?). > > >> > > >> So what does that mean (or imply) about the EXTRA_STATE value > > passed > > >> to the Fortran callbacks? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 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. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeff Squyres > > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] [MPI Forum] #117: Define a new MPI_Count Datatype
by unknown＠example.com 11 May '09

11 May '09

I want to make everyone on the 2.2 list aware of this update to ticket #117: Thanks, Dave Solt -----Original Message----- From: MPI Forum [mailto:mpi-22_at_[hidden]] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [MPI Forum] #117: Define a new MPI_Count Datatype #117: Define a new MPI_Count Datatype ----------------------------+------------------------------------------- ----------------------------+---- Reporter: kannan | Owner: davesolt Type: New routine(s) | Status: new Priority: Had 1st reading | Milestone: 2009/06/08 California Version: MPI 2.2 | Resolution: Keywords: | Implementation: Waiting ----------------------------+------------------------------------------- ----------------------------+---- Changes (by davesolt): * owner: kannan => davesolt Comment: I have reassigned this to me as my colleague, Kannan, has moved on to a different role within HP. I have been working to come up to speed on this ticket and provide a reference implementation with Open MPI, which I have made available at: http://bitbucket.org/jsquyres/mpi-count/ Thanks to Jeff S. for his help on setting this up. The implementation is for C and Fortran 90. It does not include C++, although I have manually verified that C++ does work in the same way. The goal of this prototype is to demonstrate that applications can be compiled with a header file that uses the previous interface definitions and then dynamically linked against an MPI that uses the new interfaces. However, this implementation reflexively demonstrates the feasibility because only the header files where changed. Therefore, an application compiled with this implementation will be compiled against a different header file than the associated library uses for its own definitions. For example, the mpi.h header file defines MPI_Send with an MPI_Count argument. Internally, the library defines MPI_Send using an int argument. Applications compiled against this header file will run with this implementation, proving that the header file difference does not actually change the signatures in a significant way. In addition, an application compiled with the "old" header file will run against this implementation. There are example files in the 117 directory to test with. In the course of this work I did come to wrestle with some of the same issues brought up on this list: 1) MPI_Type_size, etc. >> What about MPI_Type_size now that all the datatype constructors take MPI_Count? > >My rationale -- I'd left out converting size arguments/return values on other APIs >since I targetted MPI_Count to represent only the count type, and not get into the >promotion of sizes. I agree that logically MPI_Type_size has to be promoted, but >that would mean that we would now have to go thru every API that takes in/ returns >sizes and look for candidates. I also found it difficult to draw a line at what other arguments need to be converted to account for the fact that the proposal allows for large datatypes. In retrospect, I wish that the proposal had not attempted to allow for large datatypes and had limited itself to communicating calls. Some other calls such as MPI_Unpack and MPI_Type_size are clearly incompatible with the proposed changes. 2) MPI_Type_get_envelope, MPI_Type_get_contents I believe that since these return values that were set by creation routines, some of these arguments need to be MPI_Count sized as well. In the prototype implemenation, I did change these arguments, but have not yet made any changes to this proposal 3) MPI_Type_create_struct The proposal is to change argument #1, but I believe this is incorrect. Argument #1 is the number of items in the struct, which is likely to not be > 2GB. However, the 2nd argument is the size of individual elements, which I believe is the argument we intend to change. 4) MPI_Status_set_elements This is not included in the proposal, but I believe that argument #3 should clearly be MPI_Count sized since the proposal is that the count field of status can be > 2GB. 5) MPI_Type_create_darray I believe this was an oversight and this datatype creation routine should have argument #3 changed to MPI_Count. I would appreciate some other input on this one as I do not have a lot of experience with this particular function. -- Ticket URL: <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/117#comment:38> MPI Forum <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/> MPI Forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 17 Apr '09

17 Apr '09

Ok, I'll file an MPI-3 ticket for this. (for everyone else on the 2.2 list wondering why you just got blitzkrieged with a whole pile of emails on this topic: the listserver sent all these mails to moderation because of the lengthy CC list. IU just approved all the mails to go through this morning) On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:40 AM, William Gropp wrote: > Yes, this is worth an ATI - the fact that we traded this much mail on > it is proof of that :) > > Thanks, Jeff. > > Bill > > On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > > Someone pointed out to me this morning that there's no restriction > on > > the value of EXTRA_STATE when CREATE_KEYVAL is invoked -- it may > be an > > expression, for example. I think that pretty much seals the deal > that > > #2 is the correct way. > > > > I think that this is worth an ATI in the text; does anyone disagree? > > I volunteer to write it up/make a 3.0 ticket (hey, first ticket for > > the Misc WG! :-) ) if no one disagrees. > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Intel MPI (and most likely other MPICH2 derivatives) appears to use > >> method #2. > >> > >> Best regards. > >> > >> Alexander > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] > >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:19 PM > >> To: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; > Hubert > >> Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan > Balaji; > >> Supalov, Alexander; Bronis de Supinski; David Solt; Hans Westgaard > >> Ry; Håkon Bugge > >> Subject: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? > >> > >> This is related to -- but different from -- MPI 2.2 ticket #55 > >> ("MPI-2.1 Cross-language attribute example is wrong"). Explicitly > >> adding all the #55 CC members to this mail, plus a few others. > >> > >> I cannot find any text in MPI-2.1 (e.g., p223-225) describing > >> specific > >> behavior regarding the EXTRA_STATE arguments passed to the Fortran > >> keyval copy and delete functions (both the ADDRESS_KIND and > >> deprecated > >> flavors). I see two choices: > >> > >> 1. pass the user's original EXTRA_STATE argument by reference to > the > >> callbacks, or > >> 2. copy the user's original EXTRA_STATE into internal MPI storage > and > >> pass *that* value by reference to the callbacks > >> > >> ==> Open MPI currently does #1. What do other implementations do? > >> > >> I raise this issue because the text does not indicate which way is > >> right. And I just ran across an old Sun test that assumed #2. But > >> our internal copy of the Intel MPI tests assume #1 (to be fair: I > >> have > >> no idea if the Intel tests originally assumed #2 and we changed > them > >> to #1 over time). Indeed, #2 is actually in-line with the > philosophy > >> of storing attribute values in internal MPI storage. E.g.: > >> > >> INTEGER foo = 4 > >> INTEGER bar > >> CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, foo, ierr) > >> foo = 5 > >> CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, bar, flag, ierr) > >> > >> bar should equal 4, not 5 (right?). > >> > >> So what does that mean (or imply) about the EXTRA_STATE value > passed > >> to the Fortran callbacks? > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > Cisco Systems > > > > 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 > > > > -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 17 Apr '09

17 Apr '09

Yes, this is worth an ATI - the fact that we traded this much mail on it is proof of that :) Thanks, Jeff. Bill On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Someone pointed out to me this morning that there's no restriction on > the value of EXTRA_STATE when CREATE_KEYVAL is invoked -- it may be an > expression, for example. I think that pretty much seals the deal that > #2 is the correct way. > > I think that this is worth an ATI in the text; does anyone disagree? > I volunteer to write it up/make a 3.0 ticket (hey, first ticket for > the Misc WG! :-) ) if no one disagrees. > > > On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Intel MPI (and most likely other MPICH2 derivatives) appears to use >> method #2. >> >> Best regards. >> >> Alexander >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:19 PM >> To: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert >> Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; >> Supalov, Alexander; Bronis de Supinski; David Solt; Hans Westgaard >> Ry; Håkon Bugge >> Subject: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? >> >> This is related to -- but different from -- MPI 2.2 ticket #55 >> ("MPI-2.1 Cross-language attribute example is wrong"). Explicitly >> adding all the #55 CC members to this mail, plus a few others. >> >> I cannot find any text in MPI-2.1 (e.g., p223-225) describing >> specific >> behavior regarding the EXTRA_STATE arguments passed to the Fortran >> keyval copy and delete functions (both the ADDRESS_KIND and >> deprecated >> flavors). I see two choices: >> >> 1. pass the user's original EXTRA_STATE argument by reference to the >> callbacks, or >> 2. copy the user's original EXTRA_STATE into internal MPI storage and >> pass *that* value by reference to the callbacks >> >> ==> Open MPI currently does #1. What do other implementations do? >> >> I raise this issue because the text does not indicate which way is >> right. And I just ran across an old Sun test that assumed #2. But >> our internal copy of the Intel MPI tests assume #1 (to be fair: I >> have >> no idea if the Intel tests originally assumed #2 and we changed them >> to #1 over time). Indeed, #2 is actually in-line with the philosophy >> of storing attribute values in internal MPI storage. E.g.: >> >> INTEGER foo = 4 >> INTEGER bar >> CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, foo, ierr) >> foo = 5 >> CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, bar, flag, ierr) >> >> bar should equal 4, not 5 (right?). >> >> So what does that mean (or imply) about the EXTRA_STATE value passed >> to the Fortran callbacks? >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > 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

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 17 Apr '09

17 Apr '09

Someone pointed out to me this morning that there's no restriction on the value of EXTRA_STATE when CREATE_KEYVAL is invoked -- it may be an expression, for example. I think that pretty much seals the deal that #2 is the correct way. I think that this is worth an ATI in the text; does anyone disagree? I volunteer to write it up/make a 3.0 ticket (hey, first ticket for the Misc WG! :-) ) if no one disagrees. On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Hi, > > Intel MPI (and most likely other MPICH2 derivatives) appears to use > method #2. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:19 PM > To: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert > Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; > Supalov, Alexander; Bronis de Supinski; David Solt; Hans Westgaard > Ry; Håkon Bugge > Subject: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? > > This is related to -- but different from -- MPI 2.2 ticket #55 > ("MPI-2.1 Cross-language attribute example is wrong"). Explicitly > adding all the #55 CC members to this mail, plus a few others. > > I cannot find any text in MPI-2.1 (e.g., p223-225) describing specific > behavior regarding the EXTRA_STATE arguments passed to the Fortran > keyval copy and delete functions (both the ADDRESS_KIND and deprecated > flavors). I see two choices: > > 1. pass the user's original EXTRA_STATE argument by reference to the > callbacks, or > 2. copy the user's original EXTRA_STATE into internal MPI storage and > pass *that* value by reference to the callbacks > > ==> Open MPI currently does #1. What do other implementations do? > > I raise this issue because the text does not indicate which way is > right. And I just ran across an old Sun test that assumed #2. But > our internal copy of the Intel MPI tests assume #1 (to be fair: I have > no idea if the Intel tests originally assumed #2 and we changed them > to #1 over time). Indeed, #2 is actually in-line with the philosophy > of storing attribute values in internal MPI storage. E.g.: > > INTEGER foo = 4 > INTEGER bar > CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, foo, ierr) > foo = 5 > CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, bar, flag, ierr) > > bar should equal 4, not 5 (right?). > > So what does that mean (or imply) about the EXTRA_STATE value passed > to the Fortran callbacks? > > -- > 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. > > -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 17 Apr '09

17 Apr '09

Hi, Intel MPI (and most likely other MPICH2 derivatives) appears to use method #2. Best regards. Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:19 PM To: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; Supalov, Alexander; Bronis de Supinski; David Solt; Hans Westgaard Ry; Håkon Bugge Subject: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? This is related to -- but different from -- MPI 2.2 ticket #55 ("MPI-2.1 Cross-language attribute example is wrong"). Explicitly adding all the #55 CC members to this mail, plus a few others. I cannot find any text in MPI-2.1 (e.g., p223-225) describing specific behavior regarding the EXTRA_STATE arguments passed to the Fortran keyval copy and delete functions (both the ADDRESS_KIND and deprecated flavors). I see two choices: 1. pass the user's original EXTRA_STATE argument by reference to the callbacks, or 2. copy the user's original EXTRA_STATE into internal MPI storage and pass *that* value by reference to the callbacks ==> Open MPI currently does #1. What do other implementations do? I raise this issue because the text does not indicate which way is right. And I just ran across an old Sun test that assumed #2. But our internal copy of the Intel MPI tests assume #1 (to be fair: I have no idea if the Intel tests originally assumed #2 and we changed them to #1 over time). Indeed, #2 is actually in-line with the philosophy of storing attribute values in internal MPI storage. E.g.: INTEGER foo = 4 INTEGER bar CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, foo, ierr) foo = 5 CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, bar, flag, ierr) bar should equal 4, not 5 (right?). So what does that mean (or imply) about the EXTRA_STATE value passed to the Fortran callbacks? -- 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

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 16 Apr '09

16 Apr '09

Yes, I was focused on ATTR and not the extra_state aspect. It looks like we did modify the Intel test suite in this case. We basically included our own method to count the number of times the callback was called and did not use the EXTRA_STATE "feature" as a method to do this. So, you are correct that the Intel test suite (unmodified) will fail with approach #2. Apparently, our founding fathers here on HP-MPI believed very strongly that the Intel test was bogus and we were doing the right thing. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:14 PM To: Solt, David George Cc: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; Alexander Supalov; Bronis de Supinski; Hans Westgaard Ry; Håkon Bugge Subject: Re: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? What about when you call COMM_DUP? That's when the COPY callback will be invoked. In my copy of MPI_Keyval1_f.F, in COPY_FUNCTION1, it does the following: EXTRA_STATE = EXTRA_STATE + 1 And then later in the application, it checks the value of EXTRA1 to see if it was incremented to 3 (by calling COPY_FUNCTION1 3 times). Hence, it's assuming that EXTRA_STATE in COPY_FUNCTION1 is really a reference to a global variable -- not a pointer to internal MPI state. Does yours not do that? On Apr 16, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Solt, David George wrote: > We do have an internal copy of the Intel MPI tests. We also down > loaded a more recent copy for comparison. In both cases I do not > see code in MPI_KEYVAL1_F that would differentiate between the two > interpretations. All of the tests seem to follow the following > general pattern: > > INTEGER ATTR = MPIKEYVAL_ME > .... > CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, ATTR, ierr) .... > <ATTR is not changed> > .... > CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, ATTR, flag, ierr) > > <test flag or test if ATTR is MPIKEYVAL_ME> > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:35 AM > To: Solt, David George > Cc: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert > Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; > Alexander Supalov; Bronis de Supinski; Hans Westgaard Ry; Håkon Bugge > Subject: Re: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Solt, David George wrote: > > > HP-MPI does #2. > > > > What if the address of the variable originally passed in is no > longer > > in scope when the corresponding comm_get_attr call is made? > > > > Ya, that can be a problem. > > Do you have an internal copy of the Intel MPI tests? What does > MPI_KEYVAL1_F do? Ours checks that the value of a global variable has > been changed by the callbacks. > > I think that's why we coded it up in Open MPI this way, but I'm not > sure (that was a long time ago). > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 16 Apr '09

16 Apr '09

What about when you call COMM_DUP? That's when the COPY callback will be invoked. In my copy of MPI_Keyval1_f.F, in COPY_FUNCTION1, it does the following: EXTRA_STATE = EXTRA_STATE + 1 And then later in the application, it checks the value of EXTRA1 to see if it was incremented to 3 (by calling COPY_FUNCTION1 3 times). Hence, it's assuming that EXTRA_STATE in COPY_FUNCTION1 is really a reference to a global variable -- not a pointer to internal MPI state. Does yours not do that? On Apr 16, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Solt, David George wrote: > We do have an internal copy of the Intel MPI tests. We also down > loaded a more recent copy for comparison. In both cases I do not > see code in MPI_KEYVAL1_F that would differentiate between the two > interpretations. All of the tests seem to follow the following > general pattern: > > INTEGER ATTR = MPIKEYVAL_ME > .... > CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, ATTR, ierr) > .... > <ATTR is not changed> > .... > CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, ATTR, flag, ierr) > > <test flag or test if ATTR is MPIKEYVAL_ME> > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:35 AM > To: Solt, David George > Cc: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert > Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; > Alexander Supalov; Bronis de Supinski; Hans Westgaard Ry; Håkon Bugge > Subject: Re: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Solt, David George wrote: > > > HP-MPI does #2. > > > > What if the address of the variable originally passed in is no > longer > > in scope when the corresponding comm_get_attr call is made? > > > > Ya, that can be a problem. > > Do you have an internal copy of the Intel MPI tests? What does > MPI_KEYVAL1_F do? Ours checks that the value of a global variable has > been changed by the callbacks. > > I think that's why we coded it up in Open MPI this way, but I'm not > sure (that was a long time ago). > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 16 Apr '09

16 Apr '09

We do have an internal copy of the Intel MPI tests. We also down loaded a more recent copy for comparison. In both cases I do not see code in MPI_KEYVAL1_F that would differentiate between the two interpretations. All of the tests seem to follow the following general pattern: INTEGER ATTR = MPIKEYVAL_ME .... CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, ATTR, ierr) .... <ATTR is not changed> .... CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, ATTR, flag, ierr) <test flag or test if ATTR is MPIKEYVAL_ME> Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres_at_[hidden]] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:35 AM To: Solt, David George Cc: MPI 2.2; Rajeev Thakur; William Gropp; Rolf Rabenseifner; Hubert Ritzdorf; Terry Dontje; Dave Goodell; Darius Buntinas; Pavan Balaji; Alexander Supalov; Bronis de Supinski; Hans Westgaard Ry; Håkon Bugge Subject: Re: Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity? On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Solt, David George wrote: > HP-MPI does #2. > > What if the address of the variable originally passed in is no longer > in scope when the corresponding comm_get_attr call is made? > Ya, that can be a problem. Do you have an internal copy of the Intel MPI tests? What does MPI_KEYVAL1_F do? Ours checks that the value of a global variable has been changed by the callbacks. I think that's why we coded it up in Open MPI this way, but I'm not sure (that was a long time ago). -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Another MPI-2.2 attribute ambiguity?
by unknown＠example.com 16 Apr '09

16 Apr '09

Hi, NEC MPI uses #1 approach (such as for mpi_register_datarep and mpi_grequest_start). I assume that #2 is more in the Fortran spirit. Hubert Jeff Squyres wrote: > This is related to -- but different from -- MPI 2.2 ticket #55 > ("MPI-2.1 Cross-language attribute example is wrong"). Explicitly > adding all the #55 CC members to this mail, plus a few others. > > I cannot find any text in MPI-2.1 (e.g., p223-225) describing specific > behavior regarding the EXTRA_STATE arguments passed to the Fortran > keyval copy and delete functions (both the ADDRESS_KIND and deprecated > flavors). I see two choices: > > 1. pass the user's original EXTRA_STATE argument by reference to the > callbacks, or > 2. copy the user's original EXTRA_STATE into internal MPI storage and > pass *that* value by reference to the callbacks > > ==> Open MPI currently does #1. What do other implementations do? > > I raise this issue because the text does not indicate which way is > right. And I just ran across an old Sun test that assumed #2. But > our internal copy of the Intel MPI tests assume #1 (to be fair: I have > no idea if the Intel tests originally assumed #2 and we changed them > to #1 over time). Indeed, #2 is actually in-line with the philosophy > of storing attribute values in internal MPI storage. E.g.: > > INTEGER foo = 4 > INTEGER bar > CALL MPI_COMM_SET_ATTR(comm, keyval, foo, ierr) > foo = 5 > CALL MPI_COMM_GET_ATTR(comm, keyval, bar, flag, ierr) > > bar should equal 4, not 5 (right?). > > So what does that mean (or imply) about the EXTRA_STATE value passed > to the Fortran callbacks? > > --Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > *

1 0