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

Re: [Mpi-forum] Sept 2012 meeting of the MPI forum
by Bronis R. de Supinski 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

I don't see any conflicts yet. I think it is good to get things finalized ASAP as you suggest. I aslo agree that having fewer intervening days will work better. So 9/18-21/12 looks best. On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > To finalize the schedule for 2012, we need to come to a decision on the date for the MPI Forum meeting in Europe next year. EuroMPI is scheduled for Sept 23-26, 2012. There are two possible dates that could go with this (trying to avoid meetings over the weekend) > Sep 18:noon - 21:noon, or Oct 1:noon - 4:noon. I am inclined to go with the first date, as it leaves one weekend day between the Forum meeting and EuroMPI, rather than 4 days between the end of EuroMPI and the MPI Forum. What are people's opinions here ? > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > 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] Sept 2012 meeting of the MPI forum
by Rajeev Thakur 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Assuming MPI-3 is out before that meeting, do we still need a 4-day mtg? If we make this one 3 days, we can have it on Thu-Sat after EuroMPI as usual. Rajeev On Aug 11, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > To finalize the schedule for 2012, we need to come to a decision on the date for the MPI Forum meeting in Europe next year. EuroMPI is scheduled for Sept 23-26, 2012. There are two possible dates that could go with this (trying to avoid meetings over the weekend) > Sep 18:noon - 21:noon, or Oct 1:noon - 4:noon. I am inclined to go with the first date, as it leaves one weekend day between the Forum meeting and EuroMPI, rather than 4 days between the end of EuroMPI and the MPI Forum. What are people's opinions here ? > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Sept 2012 meeting of the MPI forum
by Graham, Richard L. 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

To finalize the schedule for 2012, we need to come to a decision on the date for the MPI Forum meeting in Europe next year. EuroMPI is scheduled for Sept 23-26, 2012. There are two possible dates that could go with this (trying to avoid meetings over the weekend) Sep 18:noon - 21:noon, or Oct 1:noon - 4:noon. I am inclined to go with the first date, as it leaves one weekend day between the Forum meeting and EuroMPI, rather than 4 days between the end of EuroMPI and the MPI Forum. What are people's opinions here ? Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Request introspection
by Jeff Squyres 02 Aug '11

02 Aug '11

Good feedback -- thanks! /me tosses this idea to /dev/null On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Martin Schulz wrote: > I tend to agree with Bill - sure, tools could use such information, but, > as Bill said, in most cases it is not sufficient information for tools > anyway and they need to track additional request information. Also, > most tools already have some kind of request tracking (since this > is needed for many use cases) and adding a field for the request > type to such a tracking mechanism is easy. > > Martin > > > On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:33 AM, William Gropp wrote: > >> There are already requests for I/O operations on files (just not >> collective nonblocking file I/O). >> >> For a tool, this isn't detailed enough - given a request at random, >> even for point-to-point, whether it is a send or receive, and whether >> it is persistent or not, is important. >> >> However, requests are also on the critical path for performance. I'm >> opposed to anything that adds yet more overhead; there are also >> alternatives for tools to use (though they require much more work on >> the part of the tool developer). >> >> Bill >> >> On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: >> >>> MPI now has 3 different types of requests that I can think of, with >>> pending proposals for (at least) 2 more: >>> >>> - point-to-point >>> - collective >>> - generalized >>> - timers (proposed) >>> - file (proposed) >>> >>> Would it be worthwhile to have a simple introspection routine that >>> can return an enum telling you the type of a request handle? E.g., >>> MPI_REQUEST_GET_TYPE that has an OUT parameter that will be set to >>> MPI_REQUEST_PT2PT, MPI_REQUEST_COLLECTIVE, MPI_REQUEST_GENERALIZED, >>> etc. >>> >>> I can generally see how this might be useful to applications, but I >>> can't think of a "must have" kind of use case. >>> >>> Does anyone else think that this would be valuable / useful? >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> William Gropp >> Director, Parallel Computing Institute >> 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-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] Request introspection
by Martin Schulz 02 Aug '11

02 Aug '11

I tend to agree with Bill - sure, tools could use such information, but, as Bill said, in most cases it is not sufficient information for tools anyway and they need to track additional request information. Also, most tools already have some kind of request tracking (since this is needed for many use cases) and adding a field for the request type to such a tracking mechanism is easy. Martin On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:33 AM, William Gropp wrote: > There are already requests for I/O operations on files (just not > collective nonblocking file I/O). > > For a tool, this isn't detailed enough - given a request at random, > even for point-to-point, whether it is a send or receive, and whether > it is persistent or not, is important. > > However, requests are also on the critical path for performance. I'm > opposed to anything that adds yet more overhead; there are also > alternatives for tools to use (though they require much more work on > the part of the tool developer). > > Bill > > On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> MPI now has 3 different types of requests that I can think of, with >> pending proposals for (at least) 2 more: >> >> - point-to-point >> - collective >> - generalized >> - timers (proposed) >> - file (proposed) >> >> Would it be worthwhile to have a simple introspection routine that >> can return an enum telling you the type of a request handle? E.g., >> MPI_REQUEST_GET_TYPE that has an OUT parameter that will be set to >> MPI_REQUEST_PT2PT, MPI_REQUEST_COLLECTIVE, MPI_REQUEST_GENERALIZED, >> etc. >> >> I can generally see how this might be useful to applications, but I >> can't think of a "must have" kind of use case. >> >> Does anyone else think that this would be valuable / useful? >> >> -- >> 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 > > William Gropp > Director, Parallel Computing Institute > 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-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Request introspection
by William Gropp 02 Aug '11

02 Aug '11

There are already requests for I/O operations on files (just not collective nonblocking file I/O). For a tool, this isn't detailed enough - given a request at random, even for point-to-point, whether it is a send or receive, and whether it is persistent or not, is important. However, requests are also on the critical path for performance. I'm opposed to anything that adds yet more overhead; there are also alternatives for tools to use (though they require much more work on the part of the tool developer). Bill On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > MPI now has 3 different types of requests that I can think of, with > pending proposals for (at least) 2 more: > > - point-to-point > - collective > - generalized > - timers (proposed) > - file (proposed) > > Would it be worthwhile to have a simple introspection routine that > can return an enum telling you the type of a request handle? E.g., > MPI_REQUEST_GET_TYPE that has an OUT parameter that will be set to > MPI_REQUEST_PT2PT, MPI_REQUEST_COLLECTIVE, MPI_REQUEST_GENERALIZED, > etc. > > I can generally see how this might be useful to applications, but I > can't think of a "must have" kind of use case. > > Does anyone else think that this would be valuable / useful? > > -- > 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 William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute 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-forum] Request introspection
by Fab Tillier 02 Aug '11

02 Aug '11

Jeff Squyres wrote on Mon, 1 Aug 2011 at 16:50:30 > MPI now has 3 different types of requests that I can think of, with pending > proposals for (at least) 2 more: > > - point-to-point > - collective > - generalized > - timers (proposed) > - file (proposed) > > Would it be worthwhile to have a simple introspection routine that can > return an enum telling you the type of a request handle? E.g., > MPI_REQUEST_GET_TYPE that has an OUT parameter that will be set to > MPI_REQUEST_PT2PT, MPI_REQUEST_COLLECTIVE, > MPI_REQUEST_GENERALIZED, etc. > > I can generally see how this might be useful to applications, but I can't think > of a "must have" kind of use case. The only place I can see this being useful is for logging type of stuff, by an intermediate entity that did not create the request. Otherwise, the entity that created the request implicitly knows what type it is, and shouldn't ever need to query the type. Having an introspection routine like you propose would add extra burden on implementations that use, for example, generalized requests for non-blocking I/O. I could also see timer requests implemented using generalized requests. > Does anyone else think that this would be valuable / useful? Without a lot of thought (I'm on vacation after all), I don't. Cheers, -Fab

1 0

Request introspection
by Jeff Squyres 01 Aug '11

01 Aug '11

MPI now has 3 different types of requests that I can think of, with pending proposals for (at least) 2 more: - point-to-point - collective - generalized - timers (proposed) - file (proposed) Would it be worthwhile to have a simple introspection routine that can return an enum telling you the type of a request handle? E.g., MPI_REQUEST_GET_TYPE that has an OUT parameter that will be set to MPI_REQUEST_PT2PT, MPI_REQUEST_COLLECTIVE, MPI_REQUEST_GENERALIZED, etc. I can generally see how this might be useful to applications, but I can't think of a "must have" kind of use case. Does anyone else think that this would be valuable / useful? -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0