March 2011 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting
by Fab Tillier 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

Graham, Richard L. wrote on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 at 10:28:51 > Nothing wrong - if these don't show up, just ping me, like others do ... Do the mails we sent over the past month and some not count as proper 'pings'? If not, what is a proper format for a 'ping'? I expected that an email titled "next meeting agenda" and "March Meeting agenda" would have met the bar. I tried to get these items on the agenda as early as possible, and am a bit taken aback to be told that, at this point, the request is too late and the schedule too tight. -Fab > > Rich > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 01:19 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting > > We have been asking for these sessions for 1+ month. Bill asked for an RMA > session 2 days and got it. What are we doing wrong? > > - Fab asked you both in person and via email on Feb 9 (last day of the > last meeting) > - Fab sent email to you on Feb 24 > - I sent email to you on March 4 > - Fab sent email to you on March 14 (today) > > All sessions need to be plenary. > > The First Reading of the MPI_Count/collectives stuff will take 2 hours. Fab > needs 30 mins to talk about const; I need 30 mins for timers. > > > > On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > >> How much time do you need for each of these ? I have gone to a mode >> where I don't add things to the agenda, unless explicitly asked, as we >> have had problems with session just not taking place, and slots are >> VERY tight. >> >> Rich >> >> On 3/14/11 10:41 AM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rich, >>> >>> I don't see on the agenda (maybe it's out of date) a time slot for the >>> first reading of ticket 265 (MPI_Count) and 269 (W version of >>> collectives, broken out of 265). I also don't see a time slot to talk >>> about 'const', or the MPI Timer requests. I'd appreciate not having the >>> lunch slots again if possible. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Fab >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham, >>> Richard L. >>> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:18 PM >>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] March meeting >>> >>> There are still several slots available for the upcoming meeting in >>> Chicago. If you would like to have a slot, please let me know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rich >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting
by Graham, Richard L. 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

Nothing wrong - if these don't show up, just ping me, like others do ... Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 01:19 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting We have been asking for these sessions for 1+ month. Bill asked for an RMA session 2 days and got it. What are we doing wrong? - Fab asked you both in person and via email on Feb 9 (last day of the last meeting) - Fab sent email to you on Feb 24 - I sent email to you on March 4 - Fab sent email to you on March 14 (today) All sessions need to be plenary. The First Reading of the MPI_Count/collectives stuff will take 2 hours. Fab needs 30 mins to talk about const; I need 30 mins for timers. On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > How much time do you need for each of these ? I have gone to a mode where > I don't add things to the agenda, unless explicitly asked, as we have had > problems with session just not taking place, and slots are VERY tight. > > Rich > > On 3/14/11 10:41 AM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Hi Rich, >> >> I don't see on the agenda (maybe it's out of date) a time slot for the >> first reading of ticket 265 (MPI_Count) and 269 (W version of >> collectives, broken out of 265). I also don't see a time slot to talk >> about 'const', or the MPI Timer requests. I'd appreciate not having the >> lunch slots again if possible. >> >> Thanks, >> -Fab >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham, >> Richard L. >> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:18 PM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: [Mpi-forum] March meeting >> >> There are still several slots available for the upcoming meeting in >> Chicago. If you would like to have a slot, please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Rich >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting
by Jeff Squyres 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

We have been asking for these sessions for 1+ month. Bill asked for an RMA session 2 days and got it. What are we doing wrong? - Fab asked you both in person and via email on Feb 9 (last day of the last meeting) - Fab sent email to you on Feb 24 - I sent email to you on March 4 - Fab sent email to you on March 14 (today) All sessions need to be plenary. The First Reading of the MPI_Count/collectives stuff will take 2 hours. Fab needs 30 mins to talk about const; I need 30 mins for timers. On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > How much time do you need for each of these ? I have gone to a mode where > I don't add things to the agenda, unless explicitly asked, as we have had > problems with session just not taking place, and slots are VERY tight. > > Rich > > On 3/14/11 10:41 AM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Hi Rich, >> >> I don't see on the agenda (maybe it's out of date) a time slot for the >> first reading of ticket 265 (MPI_Count) and 269 (W version of >> collectives, broken out of 265). I also don't see a time slot to talk >> about 'const', or the MPI Timer requests. I'd appreciate not having the >> lunch slots again if possible. >> >> Thanks, >> -Fab >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham, >> Richard L. >> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:18 PM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: [Mpi-forum] March meeting >> >> There are still several slots available for the upcoming meeting in >> Chicago. If you would like to have a slot, please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Rich >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting
by Graham, Richard L. 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

How much time do you need for each of these ? I have gone to a mode where I don't add things to the agenda, unless explicitly asked, as we have had problems with session just not taking place, and slots are VERY tight. Rich On 3/14/11 10:41 AM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: >Hi Rich, > >I don't see on the agenda (maybe it's out of date) a time slot for the >first reading of ticket 265 (MPI_Count) and 269 (W version of >collectives, broken out of 265). I also don't see a time slot to talk >about 'const', or the MPI Timer requests. I'd appreciate not having the >lunch slots again if possible. > >Thanks, >-Fab > >-----Original Message----- >From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham, >Richard L. >Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:18 PM >To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >Subject: [Mpi-forum] March meeting > >There are still several slots available for the upcoming meeting in >Chicago. If you would like to have a slot, please let me know. > >Thanks, >Rich > >_______________________________________________ >mpi-forum mailing list >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > >_______________________________________________ >mpi-forum mailing list >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] March meeting
by Fab Tillier 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

Hi Rich, I don't see on the agenda (maybe it's out of date) a time slot for the first reading of ticket 265 (MPI_Count) and 269 (W version of collectives, broken out of 265). I also don't see a time slot to talk about 'const', or the MPI Timer requests. I'd appreciate not having the lunch slots again if possible. Thanks, -Fab -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham, Richard L. Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:18 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] March meeting There are still several slots available for the upcoming meeting in Chicago. If you would like to have a slot, please let me know. Thanks, Rich _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

March meeting
by Graham, Richard L. 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

There are still several slots available for the upcoming meeting in Chicago. If you would like to have a slot, please let me know. Thanks, Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi3-rma] MPI-3 RMA Chapter available for first reading
by Bronis R. de Supinski 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

OK, I will use this version for the rest of my review. On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, William Gropp wrote: > The RMA working group is pleased to announce the MPI-3 RMA chapter is > ready for its first reading. The PDF is available at https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/wiki/mpi3-rma-propo… > ; see one-side-2.pdf . We will read this at the upcoming MPI Forum > meeting. > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-rma mailing list > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >

1 0

MPI-3 RMA Chapter available for first reading
by William Gropp 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

The RMA working group is pleased to announce the MPI-3 RMA chapter is ready for its first reading. The PDF is available at https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/wiki/mpi3-rma-propo… ; see one-side-2.pdf . We will read this at the upcoming MPI Forum meeting. 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

room block
by Graham, Richard L. 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

The room block for the next MPI Forum meeting in Chicago is about to be released. If you want a room in the block, and have not registered, please do so ASAP, before the block goes away. Thanks, Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Question on Cartesian Topologies
by Bronis R. de Supinski 08 Mar '11

08 Mar '11

Rolf: Your proposal is basically fine with me. Wording comments below. Bronis On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > Summary of my proposal: > ----------------------- > > I propose to clarify: > MPI-2.2, page 248, line 33 reads > > If ndims is zero then a zero-dimensional Cartesian > topology is created. > > but should read > > If ndims > 0 and the product of dims[i] is zero > then MPI_COMM_NULL is returned in all processes. The above sentence is fine. > If ndims is zero then and in each process, > in comm_cart a communicator is retunred > that contains only the process itself > and that is accociated with a zero-dimensional > Cartesian topology (i.e., comm_cart would > be the same if all processes in the group > of comm would have called MPI_CART_CREATE with > ndims=0 and MPI_COMM_SELF as input communicator). The above sentence has some typos plus the beginning of it does not parse properly. Replace with: If ndims is zero then a communicator that contains only the local process accociated with a zero-dimensional Cartesian topology is returned in comm_cart in each process (i.e., the same comm_cart is returned in each process in the group of comm as if the process called MPI_CART_CREATE with ndims = 0 and comm_old = MPI_COMM_SELF). and > ---------------------- > Details and reasons: > > I agree that we should clarify the standard. > To be compatible with existing implementations > (they may handle it as an error), I would propose: > > Add in MPI-2.2, page 248, line 34, > before "If ndims is zero": > > If ndims > 0 and the product of dims[i] is zero > then MPI_COMM_NULL is returned in all processes. > > This solution is in analogy to the definition of > MPI_GRAPH_CREATE in the case of nnodes==0, > see MPI-2.2, page 250, lines 30-31. > (For MPI_DIST_GRAPH_CREATE(_ADJACENT), we decided > another solution: Here, "isolated processes" are > allowed, see MPI-2.2, page 253, lines 30-33, and > page page 255, lines 15-17. > > Additionally, I propose to clarify the next sentence, > i.e., MPI-2.2, page 248, line 33: > "If ndims is zero then a zero-dimensional Cartesian > topology is created." > > Relevant is only the text in MPI_CART_CREATE and > MPI_CART_SUB. > The idea behind this additions in the standardization of > MPI-2.2 was, that MPI_CART_SUB had not forbidden > that all remain_dims[i] are false, and threfore > implementations had to return zero-dimensional > single-process-communicators in all processes. > > In MPI_CART_CREATE, the outcome is not such clear, > because the number of processes that return > such a zero-dimensional topology (i.e. a point), > - can be ONE (and ann others return MPI_COMM_NULL) > - or SIZE(comm). > > The idea behind the new wording in MPI-2.2 was > clearly to have it identical to the outcome > of MPI_COMM_SPLIT, i.e., all process return such a > zero-dimensional topology. > > Therefore, I propose to clarify: > MPI-2.2, page 248, line 33 reads > > If ndims is zero then a zero-dimensional Cartesian > topology is created. > > but should read > > If ndims > 0 and the product of dims[i] is zero > then MPI_COMM_NULL is returned in all processes. > If ndims is zero then and in each process, > comm_cart contains only the process itself > and comm_cart is accociated with a zero-dimensional > Cartesian topology (i.e., the outcme is > identical to calling this routine by all processes > in the group of comm, but with MPI_COMM_SELF > as input communicator). > > Related lines to "zero-dimensional" are > - MPI_CARTDIM_GET, MPI-2.2, page 259, lines 35-37 > - MPI_CART_RANK, MPI-2.2, page 260, lines 45-46 > - MPI_CART_COORDS, MPI-2.2, page 261, lines 19-20 > - MPI_CART_SHIFT, MPI-2.2, page 266, lines 1-4 > - MPI_CART_SUB, MPI-2.2, page 267, lines 1-4 > > Best regards > Rolf > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> >> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2011 4:22:09 PM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Question on Cartesian Topologies >> Michael: >> >> I do not agree with your inference. The values in the >> dims array are not ranks so you cannot extend rank >> restrictions to them >> >> I can envision algorithms for which providing 0 for a >> dimension indicates that the communicator should be empty. >> It would be inefficient for the application to check >> if any dimension is 0. As the MPICH-2 implementation >> demonstrates, this choice can be supported. I'll >> admit that your interpretation is reasonable although >> I think returning MPI_COMM_NULL is better. I also >> agree that an error should be returned if any of the >> dims is negative. >> >> Regardless, the issue should not be left to inference. >> We need to update the standard to clarify this issue. >> >> Bronis >> >> >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Michael Raymond wrote: >> >>> While there's nothing specified in the definition of >>> MPI_Cart_create(), you might be able to infer this from the >>> definition >>> of MPI_Cart_rank(). It specifies that a coordinate < 0 or >= the >>> size >>> of that dimension is out of range. 0 is >= 0, so it must be out of >>> range. >>> >>> Tobias Hilbrich wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> LANL, LLNL and the University of Dresden are working on a follow up >>>> tool of the runtime correctness checking tools Marmot and Umpire, >>>> which is done in cooperation by developers of both tools. >>>> >>>> We have some issues with basic correctness checks for integers. >>>> Were for most of the handles used in MPI calls there are fairly >>>> clear rules on what is allowed and what not, there are sometimes >>>> close to no rules for integer arguments. Most of the time common >>>> sense helps to come up with a reasonable assumption, but for the >>>> definition of cartesian communicators we are somewhat stuck, maybe >>>> you can help. (Maybe we missed some lines in the standard or are >>>> not aware of some base rule) >>>> >>>> What is unclear to us is "what is a correct definition for a >>>> cartesian topology?", we found no clear definition for that. So >>>> basically we care about the "ndims" and "dims" values in calls like >>>> MPI_Cart_create. Is it allowed to specify a value of 0 for one of >>>> the entries in the "dims" array? The standard specifies no >>>> restrictions in the text following MPI_Cart_create, I am referring >>>> to MPI-2.2 here. E.g. is the following correct or not: >>>> >>>> int dims[3] >>>> dims[0] = 1; >>>> dims[1] = 1; >>>> dims[2] = 0; /*Is this ok/suspicious/erroneous ?*/ >>>> MPI_Cart_create( ... , 3 /*ndims*/, dims , ...); >>>> >>>> Our little testing revealed that it causes OpenMPI, LAM-MPI, >>>> MPICH-1 to crash, whereas MPICH-2 returns MPI_COMM_NULL here. >>>> >>>> many thanks, Tobias >>>> >>>> P.S.: This is probably not the last os such questions, if this is a >>>> bad way to ask these we would be glad to get suggestions on how to >>>> raise them. A tool that validates whether an MPI application >>>> behaves according to the standard or not, hopefully provides some >>>> motivates to think about these troublesome questions ;) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Tobias Hilbrich >>>> Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter >>>> >>>> Technische Universitaet Dresden >>>> Zentrum fuer Informationsdienste und Hochleistungsrechnen (ZIH) >>>> (Center for Information Services and High Performance Computing >>>> (ZIH)) >>>> Interdisziplinäre Anwenderunterstützung und Koordination >>>> (Interdisciplinary Application Development and Coordination) >>>> 01062 Dresden >>>> Tel.: +49 (351) 463-32041 >>>> Fax: +49 (351) 463-37773 >>>> E-Mail: tobias.hilbrich(a)zih.tu-dresden.de >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> -- >>> Michael A. Raymond >>> Message Passing Toolkit Team >>> Silicon Graphics Inc >>> (651) 683-3434 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > -- > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30) >

1 0