February 2012 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Graham, Richard L. 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Chapter committee should be fine - we don't need a change-log for NBC (it is not in a release version of the standard, so no change to log), but have not yet looked at the other two areas. Rich On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:10:42PM +0000, Fab Tillier wrote: >> I made a ticket for this, 321, so I could track it and have a way of >> posting a PDF for folks to take a look (e.g. I'd like the chapter >> authors for NBC, I/O, and generalized requests to agree to the >> wording). Beyond that, I don't care how this eventually gets checked >> into the approved branch, and am happy just merging it and marking it >> as ticket0 and omitting the changelog entry if that's what folks want. >> >> So far we have: >> >> In favor of full ticket: >> - Rolf >> >> In favor of chapter committee: >> - Bill >> - Dave >> - Bronis >> >> I'd like to see at least Rich (pt2pt), Torsten (coll), and Rajeev >> (I/O) chime in with their preference. > I already indicated my preference a week ago. I was against a ticket and > pro chapter committee. We should lump this into the bulk ticket-0 > tickets we have lying around. > > Torsten > > -- > bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- > Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead > Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC) > 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 > NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736 > _______________________________________________ > 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] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Jeff Hammond 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

I favor chapter committee, as it is obvious even to a chemist (1) that these changes are necessary and (2) how the appropriate members of the Forum can/should/will implement them. While I am not a chapter author, I have been the most vocal proponent of RMA request-based operations, and both (1) and (2) remain obvious in this context. Jeff On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Fab Tillier <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > I made a ticket for this, 321, so I could track it and have a way of posting a PDF for folks to take a look (e.g. I'd like the chapter authors for NBC, I/O, and generalized requests to agree to the wording). ï¿½Beyond that, I don't care how this eventually gets checked into the approved branch, and am happy just merging it and marking it as ticket0 and omitting the changelog entry if that's what folks want. > > So far we have: > > In favor of full ticket: > - Rolf > > In favor of chapter committee: > - Bill > - Dave > - Bronis > > I'd like to see at least Rich (pt2pt), Torsten (coll), and Rajeev (I/O) chime in with their preference. > > -Fab > > Dave Goodell wrote on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 at 10:41:51 > >> No. ï¿½This is the sort of thing that should be handled by the chapter >> committee. ï¿½This issue is far too small to warrant the attention of the >> full Forum. >> >> We need to stay away from this mentality of making a ticket for everything >> by default. >> >> -Dave >> >> On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:57 AM CST, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >>> A change that needs a change-log entry is not a ticket-0 >>> change. Therefore a ticket with ticket number is needed and >>> it should be done now, added to the agenda, and read in Chicago. >>> >>> This change definitely is a correction that changes >>> the standard, but hopefully no implementation, >>> because all existing implementations may have >>> it already implemented (i.e. are currently wrong >>> if we look at the wording of MPI-2.2). >>> >>> Because it is very clear, it should need only 10 minutes >>> of the Forum time. >>> >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> To: "Main MPI Forum >>>> mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February >>>> 13, 2012 7:38:16 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>> generalized, I/O, and NBC requests My recommendation is that the >>>> chapter committee fold this into the chapter, rather than add this to >>>> the long list of infinitesimal updates. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>> >>>>> So are we back to needing a ticket for this then? Or is it still at >>>>> the discretion of the chapter authors? >>>>> >>>>> -Fab >>>>> >>>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 08:32:07 >>>>> >>>>>> Rajeev and Fab, >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, you are both right. >>>>>> Then we need a change-log like >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>>>>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is >>>>>>>> completed. >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum >>>>>>> mailing >>>>>>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, >>>>>>> 2012 >>>>>>> 3:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>>> generalized, >>>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests >>>>>>> existed in >>>>>>> MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rajeev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>>>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were >>>>>>>>> missed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. >>>>>>>> They may come with MPI-3.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, your text is perfect. >>>>>>>> Do you file the ticket? >>>>>>>> Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, >>>>>>>> as in nearly all other tickets. >>>>>>>> I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes >>>>>>>> mentioned in may email into the ticket. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Change-log, I would recommend: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>>>>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> To: "Main MPI Forum >>>>>>>>> mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, >>>>>>>>> February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] >>>>>>>>> MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>>>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were >>>>>>>>> missed. >>>>>>>>> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it >>>>>>>>> slightly >>>>>>>>> differently, though, something along the lines of: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent >>>>>>>>> communication operation, the persistent communication request is >>>>>>>>> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests >>>>>>>>> first, >>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 >>>>>>>>>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 do >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> mention the generalize requests although it was intended that >>>>>>>>>> MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts as it would >>>>>>>>>> have been a isend or irecv request. 2. Nobody has checked for >>>>>>>>>> nonblocking collectives and nonblocking I/O that this text >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>> now also include those routines. >>>>>>>>>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>>>>>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, >>>>>>>>>> then ..." >>>>>>>>>> but we wanted to say >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>>>>>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on >>>>>>>>>> page 69), >>>>>>>>>> then ..." >>>>>>>>>> Yes? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab >>>>>>>>>>> Tillier" >>>>>>>>>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>>>>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, >>>>>>>>>>> 2012 >>>>>>>>>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>>>>>>> generalized, >>>>>>>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am >>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> will be very pressed for time... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The >>>>>>>>>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do >>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together >>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting, though. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee >>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the generalized requests? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> text >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> completion, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_TEST >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (page 55, line 7), it seems to imply that the request >>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests. Are generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> completed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same way? Are users required to free such requests >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly after they complete using MPI_REQUEST_FREE? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the text to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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) >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/old/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Torsten Hoefler 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:10:42PM +0000, Fab Tillier wrote: > I made a ticket for this, 321, so I could track it and have a way of > posting a PDF for folks to take a look (e.g. I'd like the chapter > authors for NBC, I/O, and generalized requests to agree to the > wording). Beyond that, I don't care how this eventually gets checked > into the approved branch, and am happy just merging it and marking it > as ticket0 and omitting the changelog entry if that's what folks want. > > So far we have: > > In favor of full ticket: > - Rolf > > In favor of chapter committee: > - Bill > - Dave > - Bronis > > I'd like to see at least Rich (pt2pt), Torsten (coll), and Rajeev > (I/O) chime in with their preference. I already indicated my preference a week ago. I was against a ticket and pro chapter committee. We should lump this into the bulk ticket-0 tickets we have lying around. Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC) 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Fab Tillier 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

I made a ticket for this, 321, so I could track it and have a way of posting a PDF for folks to take a look (e.g. I'd like the chapter authors for NBC, I/O, and generalized requests to agree to the wording). Beyond that, I don't care how this eventually gets checked into the approved branch, and am happy just merging it and marking it as ticket0 and omitting the changelog entry if that's what folks want. So far we have: In favor of full ticket: - Rolf In favor of chapter committee: - Bill - Dave - Bronis I'd like to see at least Rich (pt2pt), Torsten (coll), and Rajeev (I/O) chime in with their preference. -Fab Dave Goodell wrote on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 at 10:41:51 > No. This is the sort of thing that should be handled by the chapter > committee. This issue is far too small to warrant the attention of the > full Forum. > > We need to stay away from this mentality of making a ticket for everything > by default. > > -Dave > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:57 AM CST, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> A change that needs a change-log entry is not a ticket-0 >> change. Therefore a ticket with ticket number is needed and >> it should be done now, added to the agenda, and read in Chicago. >> >> This change definitely is a correction that changes >> the standard, but hopefully no implementation, >> because all existing implementations may have >> it already implemented (i.e. are currently wrong >> if we look at the wording of MPI-2.2). >> >> Because it is very clear, it should need only 10 minutes >> of the Forum time. >> >> Rolf >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> To: "Main MPI Forum >>> mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February >>> 13, 2012 7:38:16 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>> generalized, I/O, and NBC requests My recommendation is that the >>> chapter committee fold this into the chapter, rather than add this to >>> the long list of infinitesimal updates. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>> >>>> So are we back to needing a ticket for this then? Or is it still at >>>> the discretion of the chapter authors? >>>> >>>> -Fab >>>> >>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 08:32:07 >>>> >>>>> Rajeev and Fab, >>>>> >>>>> yes, you are both right. >>>>> Then we need a change-log like >>>>> >>>>>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>>>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is >>>>>>> completed. >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum >>>>>> mailing >>>>>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, >>>>>> 2012 >>>>>> 3:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>> generalized, >>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests >>>>>> existed in >>>>>> MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rajeev >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were >>>>>>>> missed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. >>>>>>> They may come with MPI-3.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, your text is perfect. >>>>>>> Do you file the ticket? >>>>>>> Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, >>>>>>> as in nearly all other tickets. >>>>>>> I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes >>>>>>> mentioned in may email into the ticket. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As Change-log, I would recommend: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>>>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> To: "Main MPI Forum >>>>>>>> mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, >>>>>>>> February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] >>>>>>>> MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were >>>>>>>> missed. >>>>>>>> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it >>>>>>>> slightly >>>>>>>> differently, though, something along the lines of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent >>>>>>>> communication operation, the persistent communication request is >>>>>>>> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests >>>>>>>> first, >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 >>>>>>>>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 do >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> mention the generalize requests although it was intended that >>>>>>>>> MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts as it would >>>>>>>>> have been a isend or irecv request. 2. Nobody has checked for >>>>>>>>> nonblocking collectives and nonblocking I/O that this text >>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>> now also include those routines. >>>>>>>>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>>>>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, >>>>>>>>> then ..." >>>>>>>>> but we wanted to say >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>>>>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on >>>>>>>>> page 69), >>>>>>>>> then ..." >>>>>>>>> Yes? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab >>>>>>>>>> Tillier" >>>>>>>>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>>>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, >>>>>>>>>> 2012 >>>>>>>>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>>>>>> generalized, >>>>>>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am >>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> will be very pressed for time... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The >>>>>>>>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do >>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together >>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> meeting, though. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee >>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text >>>>>>>>>>>> for the generalized requests? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types >>>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting >>>>>>>>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> text >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on >>>>>>>>>>>>> completion, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and >>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_TEST >>>>>>>>>>>>> (page 55, line 7), it seems to imply that the request >>>>>>>>>>>>> handle is >>>>>>>>>>>>> only set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and >>>>>>>>>>>>> receive >>>>>>>>>>>>> requests. Are generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not >>>>>>>>>>>>> completed >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same way? Are users required to free such requests >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly after they complete using MPI_REQUEST_FREE? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent >>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent >>>>>>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we >>>>>>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>>>>>> the text to >>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum >>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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) >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Dave Goodell 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

No. This is the sort of thing that should be handled by the chapter committee. This issue is far too small to warrant the attention of the full Forum. We need to stay away from this mentality of making a ticket for everything by default. -Dave On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:57 AM CST, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > A change that needs a change-log entry is not a ticket-0 > change. Therefore a ticket with ticket number is needed and > it should be done now, added to the agenda, and read in Chicago. > > This change definitely is a correction that changes > the standard, but hopefully no implementation, > because all existing implementations may have > it already implemented (i.e. are currently wrong > if we look at the wording of MPI-2.2). > > Because it is very clear, it should need only 10 minutes > of the Forum time. > > Rolf > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> >> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:38:16 PM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests >> My recommendation is that the chapter committee fold this into the >> chapter, rather than add this to the long list of infinitesimal >> updates. >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Fab Tillier wrote: >> >>> So are we back to needing a ticket for this then? Or is it still at >>> the discretion of the chapter authors? >>> >>> -Fab >>> >>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 08:32:07 >>> >>>> Rajeev and Fab, >>>> >>>> yes, you are both right. >>>> Then we need a change-log like >>>> >>>>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle >>>>>> to >>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is >>>> completed. >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum >>>>> mailing >>>>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, >>>>> 2012 >>>>> 3:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>> generalized, >>>>> I/O, and NBC requests Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests >>>>> existed in >>>>> MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. >>>>> >>>>> Rajeev >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were >>>>>>> missed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. >>>>>> They may come with MPI-3.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, your text is perfect. >>>>>> Do you file the ticket? >>>>>> Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, >>>>>> as in nearly all other tickets. >>>>>> I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes >>>>>> mentioned in may email into the ticket. >>>>>> >>>>>> As Change-log, I would recommend: >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle >>>>>> to >>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Rolf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> >>>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, >>>>>>> and NBC requests >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were >>>>>>> missed. >>>>>>> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it >>>>>>> slightly >>>>>>> differently, though, something along the lines of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent >>>>>>> communication operation, the persistent communication request is >>>>>>> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests >>>>>>> first, >>>>>>> so >>>>>>> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 >>>>>>>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 do >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> mention the generalize requests although it was intended that >>>>>>>> MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts as it would >>>>>>>> have been a isend or irecv request. 2. Nobody has checked for >>>>>>>> nonblocking collectives and nonblocking I/O that this text >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> now also include those routines. >>>>>>>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>>>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, >>>>>>>> then ..." >>>>>>>> but we wanted to say >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>>>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on >>>>>>>> page 69), >>>>>>>> then ..." >>>>>>>> Yes? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab >>>>>>>>> Tillier" >>>>>>>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, >>>>>>>>> 2012 >>>>>>>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>>>>> generalized, >>>>>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am >>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> will be very pressed for time... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The >>>>>>>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> meeting, though. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee >>>>>>>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text >>>>>>>>>>> for the generalized requests? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types >>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>> revisiting >>>>>>>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is >>>>>>>>>>>> text >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on >>>>>>>>>>>> completion, >>>>>>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and >>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_TEST >>>>>>>>>>>> (page 55, line 7), it seems to imply that the request >>>>>>>>>>>> handle is >>>>>>>>>>>> only set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and >>>>>>>>>>>> receive >>>>>>>>>>>> requests. Are generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not >>>>>>>>>>>> completed >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way? Are users required to free such requests >>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly after they complete using MPI_REQUEST_FREE? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> persistent >>>>>>>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent >>>>>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we >>>>>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>>>>> the text to >>>>>>>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> >> 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 > > -- > 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) > _______________________________________________ > 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] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Rolf Rabenseifner 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

A change that needs a change-log entry is not a ticket-0 change. Therefore a ticket with ticket number is needed and it should be done now, added to the agenda, and read in Chicago. This change definitely is a correction that changes the standard, but hopefully no implementation, because all existing implementations may have it already implemented (i.e. are currently wrong if we look at the wording of MPI-2.2). Because it is very clear, it should need only 10 minutes of the Forum time. Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:38:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests > My recommendation is that the chapter committee fold this into the > chapter, rather than add this to the long list of infinitesimal > updates. > > Bill > > On Feb 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Fab Tillier wrote: > > > So are we back to needing a ticket for this then? Or is it still at > > the discretion of the chapter authors? > > > > -Fab > > > > Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 08:32:07 > > > >> Rajeev and Fab, > >> > >> yes, you are both right. > >> Then we need a change-log like > >> > >>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] > >>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle > >>>> to > >> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is > >> completed. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum > >>> mailing > >>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, > >>> 2012 > >>> 3:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and > >>> generalized, > >>> I/O, and NBC requests Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests > >>> existed in > >>> MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. > >>> > >>> Rajeev > >>> > >>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 > >>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were > >>>>> missed. > >>>> > >>>> Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. > >>>> They may come with MPI-3.0. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, your text is perfect. > >>>> Do you file the ticket? > >>>> Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, > >>>> as in nearly all other tickets. > >>>> I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes > >>>> mentioned in may email into the ticket. > >>>> > >>>> As Change-log, I would recommend: > >>>> > >>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] > >>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle > >>>> to > >>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards > >>>> Rolf > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> > >>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" > >>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, > >>>>> and NBC requests > >>>>> > >>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 > >>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were > >>>>> missed. > >>>>> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it > >>>>> slightly > >>>>> differently, though, something along the lines of: > >>>>> > >>>>> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent > >>>>> communication operation, the persistent communication request is > >>>>> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated > >>>>> and > >>>>> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." > >>>>> > >>>>> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests > >>>>> first, > >>>>> so > >>>>> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). > >>>>> > >>>>> -Fab > >>>>> > >>>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 > >>>>> > >>>>>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 > >>>>>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 do > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> mention the generalize requests although it was intended that > >>>>>> MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts as it would > >>>>>> have been a isend or irecv request. 2. Nobody has checked for > >>>>>> nonblocking collectives and nonblocking I/O that this text > >>>>>> must > >>>>>> now also include those routines. > >>>>>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request > >>>>>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, > >>>>>> then ..." > >>>>>> but we wanted to say > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request > >>>>>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on > >>>>>> page 69), > >>>>>> then ..." > >>>>>> Yes? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>> Rolf > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab > >>>>>>> Tillier" > >>>>>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" > >>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, > >>>>>>> 2012 > >>>>>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and > >>>>>>> generalized, > >>>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am > >>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>> will be very pressed for time... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The > >>>>>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do > >>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together > >>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> meeting, though. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Fab > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee > >>>>>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text > >>>>>>>>> for the generalized requests? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types > >>>>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>> revisiting > >>>>>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is > >>>>>>>>>> text > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> seems to > >>>>>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on > >>>>>>>>>> completion, > >>>>>>>>>> but it > >>>>>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Bill > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and > >>>>>>>>>> MPI_TEST > >>>>>>>>>> (page 55, line 7), it seems to imply that the request > >>>>>>>>>> handle is > >>>>>>>>>> only set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and > >>>>>>>>>> receive > >>>>>>>>>> requests. Are generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not > >>>>>>>>>> completed > >>>>>>>>>> the same way? Are users required to free such requests > >>>>>>>>>> explicitly after they complete using MPI_REQUEST_FREE? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> persistent > >>>>>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent > >>>>>>>>>> request > >>>>>>>>>> just > >>>>>>>>>> rather > >>>>>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we > >>>>>>>>>> update > >>>>>>>>>> the text to > >>>>>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> -Fab > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum > >>>>>>>>>> mailing list > >>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> 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) > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > 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 -- 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

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by William Gropp 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

My recommendation is that the chapter committee fold this into the chapter, rather than add this to the long list of infinitesimal updates. Bill On Feb 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Fab Tillier wrote: > So are we back to needing a ticket for this then? Or is it still at the discretion of the chapter authors? > > -Fab > > Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 08:32:07 > >> Rajeev and Fab, >> >> yes, you are both right. >> Then we need a change-log like >> >>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to >> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is completed. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing >>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 >>> 3:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, >>> I/O, and NBC requests Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests existed in >>> MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. >>> >>> Rajeev >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>> >>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. >>>> >>>> Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. >>>> They may come with MPI-3.0. >>>> >>>> Yes, your text is perfect. >>>> Do you file the ticket? >>>> Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, >>>> as in nearly all other tickets. >>>> I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes >>>> mentioned in may email into the ticket. >>>> >>>> As Change-log, I would recommend: >>>> >>>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to >>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Rolf >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> >>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, >>>>> and NBC requests >>>>> >>>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. >>>>> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it slightly >>>>> differently, though, something along the lines of: >>>>> >>>>> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent >>>>> communication operation, the persistent communication request is >>>>> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated >>>>> and >>>>> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." >>>>> >>>>> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests first, >>>>> so >>>>> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). >>>>> >>>>> -Fab >>>>> >>>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 >>>>> >>>>>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 >>>>>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 do not >>>>>> mention the generalize requests although it was intended that >>>>>> MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts as it would >>>>>> have been a isend or irecv request. 2. Nobody has checked for >>>>>> nonblocking collectives and nonblocking I/O that this text must >>>>>> now also include those routines. >>>>>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say >>>>>> >>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, >>>>>> then ..." >>>>>> but we wanted to say >>>>>> >>>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on >>>>>> page 69), >>>>>> then ..." >>>>>> Yes? >>>>>> >>>>>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Rolf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab Tillier" >>>>>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 >>>>>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>>> generalized, >>>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am sure >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> will be very pressed for time... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The >>>>>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together before >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> meeting, though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee >>>>>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text >>>>>>>>> for the generalized requests? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types >>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>> revisiting >>>>>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is text >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on >>>>>>>>>> completion, >>>>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and MPI_TEST >>>>>>>>>> (page 55, line 7), it seems to imply that the request handle is >>>>>>>>>> only set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and receive >>>>>>>>>> requests. Are generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not completed >>>>>>>>>> the same way? Are users required to free such requests >>>>>>>>>> explicitly after they complete using MPI_REQUEST_FREE? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those to >>>>>>>>>> persistent >>>>>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent request >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we >>>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>>> the text to >>>>>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum >>>>>>>>>> mailing list >>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 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] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Fab Tillier 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

So are we back to needing a ticket for this then? Or is it still at the discretion of the chapter authors? -Fab Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 at 08:32:07 > Rajeev and Fab, > > yes, you are both right. > Then we need a change-log like > >>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to > MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is completed. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing >> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 >> 3:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, >> I/O, and NBC requests Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests existed in >> MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. >> >> Rajeev >> >> On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. >>> >>> Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. >>> They may come with MPI-3.0. >>> >>> Yes, your text is perfect. >>> Do you file the ticket? >>> Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, >>> as in nearly all other tickets. >>> I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes >>> mentioned in may email into the ticket. >>> >>> As Change-log, I would recommend: >>> >>> Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] >>> It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to >>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, >>>> and NBC requests >>>> >>>> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >>>> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. >>>> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it slightly >>>> differently, though, something along the lines of: >>>> >>>> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent >>>> communication operation, the persistent communication request is >>>> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated >>>> and >>>> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." >>>> >>>> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests first, >>>> so >>>> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). >>>> >>>> -Fab >>>> >>>> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 >>>> >>>>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: >>>>> >>>>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 >>>>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 do not >>>>> mention the generalize requests although it was intended that >>>>> MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts as it would >>>>> have been a isend or irecv request. 2. Nobody has checked for >>>>> nonblocking collectives and nonblocking I/O that this text must >>>>> now also include those routines. >>>>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say >>>>> >>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, >>>>> then ..." >>>>> but we wanted to say >>>>> >>>>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>>>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on >>>>> page 69), >>>>> then ..." >>>>> Yes? >>>>> >>>>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Rolf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab Tillier" >>>>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 >>>>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>>>> generalized, >>>>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am sure >>>>>> I >>>>>> will be very pressed for time... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The >>>>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together before >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> meeting, though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee >>>>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text >>>>>>>> for the generalized requests? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> revisiting >>>>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is text >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on >>>>>>>>> completion, >>>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and MPI_TEST >>>>>>>>> (page 55, line 7), it seems to imply that the request handle is >>>>>>>>> only set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and receive >>>>>>>>> requests. Are generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not completed >>>>>>>>> the same way? Are users required to free such requests >>>>>>>>> explicitly after they complete using MPI_REQUEST_FREE? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those to >>>>>>>>> persistent >>>>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent request >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we >>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>> the text to >>>>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum >>>>>>>>> mailing list >>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Rolf Rabenseifner 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Rajeev and Fab, yes, you are both right. Then we need a change-log like > > Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] > > It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to MPI_REQUEST_NULL if also a generalized or I/O request is completed. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:32:47 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests > Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests existed in MPI-2. Nonblocking > collective I/O may come in MPI-3. > > Rajeev > > On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > > >> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 > >> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. > > > > Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. > > They may come with MPI-3.0. > > > > Yes, your text is perfect. > > Do you file the ticket? > > Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, > > as in nearly all other tickets. > > I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes > > mentioned in may email into the ticket. > > > > As Change-log, I would recommend: > > > > Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] > > It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to > > MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. > > > > Best regards > > Rolf > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> > >> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, > >> and NBC requests > >> > >> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 > >> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. > >> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it slightly > >> differently, though, something along the lines of: > >> > >> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent > >> communication operation, the persistent communication request is > >> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated > >> and > >> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." > >> > >> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests first, > >> so > >> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). > >> > >> -Fab > >> > >> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 > >> > >>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: > >>> > >>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 > >>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 > >>> do not mention the generalize requests although it was intended > >>> that MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts > >>> as it would have been a isend or irecv request. > >>> 2. Nobody has checked for nonblocking collectives and > >>> nonblocking I/O that this text must now also include those > >>> routines. > >>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say > >>> > >>> "If the communication object associated with this request > >>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, > >>> then ..." > >>> but we wanted to say > >>> > >>> "If the communication object associated with this request > >>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on > >>> page 69), > >>> then ..." > >>> Yes? > >>> > >>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Rolf > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab Tillier" > >>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" > >>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 > >>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and > >>>> generalized, > >>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am sure > >>>> I > >>>> will be very pressed for time... > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT > >>>>> and > >>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The > >>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do > >>>>> this. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together before > >>>>> the > >>>>> meeting, though. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Fab > >>>>> > >>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee > >>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text > >>>>>> for the generalized requests? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types > >>>>>>> without > >>>>>>> revisiting > >>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is text > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> seems to > >>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on > >>>>>>> completion, > >>>>>>> but it > >>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bill > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and > >>>>>>> MPI_TEST > >>>>>>> (page 55, > >>>>>>> line 7), it seems to imply that the request handle is only set > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and receive requests. > >>>>>>> Are > >>>>>>> generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not completed the same way? > >>>>>>> Are > >>>>>>> users > >>>>>>> required to free such requests explicitly after they complete > >>>>>>> using > >>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_FREE? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those to > >>>>>>> persistent > >>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent request > >>>>>>> just > >>>>>>> rather > >>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we > >>>>>>> update > >>>>>>> the text to > >>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> -Fab > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum > >>>>>>> mailing > >>>>>>> list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected] > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests
by Rajeev Thakur 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Nonblocking *independent* I/O requests existed in MPI-2. Nonblocking collective I/O may come in MPI-3. Rajeev On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. > > Non-blocking I/O requests did not exist in MPI-2.2. > They may come with MPI-3.0. > > Yes, your text is perfect. > Do you file the ticket? > Please use official MPI-2.2 page and line numbers, > as in nearly all other tickets. > I would say, it is enough when you copy the paragraphes > mentioned in may email into the ticket. > > As Change-log, I would recommend: > > Section 3.7 on page 48.[[BR]] > It is clarified that MPI_Wait and MPI_Test set the request handle to > MPI_REQUEST_NULL if a generalized request is completed. > > Best regards > Rolf > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> >> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:45:13 AM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and generalized, I/O, and NBC requests >> >> Non-blocking I/O requests weren't covered by the text in the 2.2 >> standard, so it's not just generalized requests that were missed. >> Other than that, you have it correct Rolf. I would word it slightly >> differently, though, something along the lines of: >> >> "If the operation associated with this request was a persistent >> communication operation, the persistent communication request is >> marked as inactive. Other nonblocking operations are deallocated and >> the request handle is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL." >> >> Basically, mention the special case of persistent requests first, so >> as to avoid the negative (non-persistent requests). >> >> -Fab >> >> Rolf Rabenseifner wrote on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 at 05:46:17 >> >>> When I understand correctly, then we have two problems: >>> >>> 1. MPI-2.2 has the "bug" that MPI-2.2 >>> page 53 line 47 - page 54 line 3, and page 54 lines 40-45 >>> do not mention the generalize requests although it was intended >>> that MPI_Wait or MPI_Test of a generalized request acts >>> as it would have been a isend or irecv request. >>> 2. Nobody has checked for nonblocking collectives and >>> nonblocking I/O that this text must now also include those >>> routines. >>> When I also understand correctly, then we currently say >>> >>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>> was created by a nonblocking send or receive all, >>> then ..." >>> but we wanted to say >>> >>> "If the communication object associated with this request >>> is not a persistent communication request (see Section 3.9 on >>> page 69), >>> then ..." >>> Yes? >>> >>> This change would solve both problems. Yes? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> To: "Fab Tillier" >>>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" >>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 >>>> 7:57:30 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_WAIT/MPI_TEST and >>>> generalized, >>>> I/O, and NBC requests I will leave it to you to decide. I am sure I >>>> will be very pressed for time... >>>> >>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think it would make more sense to fix the text for the WAIT and >>>>> TEST routines, rather than spread the information around. The >>>>> generalized request section might not need changes if we do this. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if I'll have time to put the text together before the >>>>> meeting, though. >>>>> >>>>> -Fab >>>>> >>>>> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 at 10:13:48 >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am fine with the decision to make it the chapter committee >>>>>> responsibility. I suppose that means I need to draft text >>>>>> for the generalized requests? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, William Gropp wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like this is a result of adding new request types >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> revisiting >>>>>>> the original text. Under generalized requests, there is text >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>> imply that the request is set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL on completion, >>>>>>> but it >>>>>>> isn't explicit and should be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a chapter committee correction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at the text for MPI_WAIT (page 54, line 15) and MPI_TEST >>>>>>> (page 55, >>>>>>> line 7), it seems to imply that the request handle is only set >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_NULL for non-blocking send and receive requests. Are >>>>>>> generalized, I/O, and NBC requests not completed the same way? >>>>>>> Are >>>>>>> users >>>>>>> required to free such requests explicitly after they complete >>>>>>> using >>>>>>> MPI_REQUEST_FREE? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would have expected that all request handles except those to >>>>>>> persistent >>>>>>> requests are set to MPI_REQUEST_NULL, and persistent request >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> rather >>>>>>> marked inactive. If that is indeed the intent, shouldn't we >>>>>>> update >>>>>>> the text to >>>>>>> reflect this? Is this a ticket-0 level change? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> -Fab >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ mpi-forum >>>>>>> mailing >>>>>>> list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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) > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0