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

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
by Adam T. Moody 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

This reminds me of the discussions we had on datatypes, regarding which datatypes are available and can be used before MPI_Init is called. Since people weren't keen on the fact of duplicating all of the datatypes and associated routines for MPI_T, in that case, we boiled down the list of datatypes allowed in MPI_T to a very limited set of the existing MPI datatypes, and then required that implementations support these after MPI_T_INIT but before MPI_INIT. I think it's best to resolve this cleanly, even if that means things are undefined between now and 3.1. I can think of two "clean" ways to resolve this: 1) remove all overlap of MPI_T_ and MPI_ error codes, i.e., MPI_T_ errors live in a separate space from MPI_ errors, 0 = MPI_T_SUCCESS < MPI_T_* < MPI_T_LAST_ERRCODE, and introduce new corresponding MPI_T_ERROR_CLASS/STRING functions that can be invoked after MPI_T_INIT. Then all MPI_T functions return MPI_T error codes (and only MPI_T error codes), which must be interpretted with the new MPI_T_ERROR* functions. Personally, it feels a little strange to pass an MPI_T_ error code to standard MPI_ functions, since we've otherwise separated the interfaces as much as possible. 2) Specify that MPI_T error codes can be passed to the existing MPI_ERROR* functions, but require that implementations allow one to call these functions before MPI_INIT (at least for MPI_T_ error codes). By the way, does the standard say anything about calling MPI_ERROR* functions before MPI_INIT? What if someone wanted to process an error code returned from one of the functions you are allowed to call before MPI_INIT, such as MPI_INITIALIZED? -Adam Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >These are good points. I withdraw my agreement to the changes >until Martin or Rolf addresses them. > >On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Mohror, Kathryn wrote: > > > >>I have some concerns over this. >> >> >> >>>The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. >>>This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know >>>the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. >>> >>> >>If we are going to treat MPI_T error codes the same way they are in the rest of the standard, does it make sense to say that "only classes are returned" by MPI_T calls? I think that MPI calls return codes and the codes are translated to classes by the MPI_ERROR_CLASS function. >> >>If MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING are not available before MPI_Init, then this may be a hardship on tools. I imagine many tools doing a significant amount of set up before MPI_Init to avoid overhead. However, if there is no information about what the return codes mean, then tools may have difficulty. >> >>Possibly it makes more sense to treat MPI_T return values differently than MPI calls? Could the MPI_T return values be a set of defined codes instead? >> >>Does anyone have different insight on error codes vs classes? >> >>Kathryn >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >>>bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski >>>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:37 AM >>>To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>>Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>> >>> >>>OK by me. >>> >>>On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Dave Goodell wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I agree, we should make these changes. >>>> >>>>-Dave >>>> >>>>On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:55 AM CDT, Schulz, Martin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi Rolf, all, >>>>> >>>>>I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the chapter >>>committee for tools) should concur, though. >>> >>> >>>>>Anybody else have any concerns over these changes? >>>>> >>>>>As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree - let's target those in >>>>> >>>>> >>>3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits. >>> >>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Martin et al., >>>>>> >>>>>>Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend: >>>>>> >>>>>>1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface" >>>>>>last sentence reads >>>>>> >>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>> implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>>but should read >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>>>>>cannot overlap with any other >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> error codes and error classes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>returned by the MPI >>>>>>>implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>>>>>>defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> especially they must satisfy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by >>>>>> >>>>>> Error classes >>>>>> Error classes (continued) >>>>>> Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface >>>>>> >>>>>>and these lines should read >>>>>> >>>>>> Error classes >>>>>> Error classes (continued) >>>>>> Error classes (continued) >>>>>> >>>>>>3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table >>>>>> >>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>>> >>>>>>should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table. >>>>>> >>>>>>Okay? >>>>>> >>>>>>The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>MPI_ERROR_STRING >>> >>> >>>>>>outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. >>>>>>This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know >>>>>>the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute >>>>>>the changes in chap-appLang. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best regards >>>>>>Rolf >>>>>> >>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>>>To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>> >>> >>>>>>>Hi Rolf, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in several >>>>>>>meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally agree with your >>>>>>>comments below. However, they are not really error classes (at least >>>>>>>in the tools group we/I never thought about them this way), but just >>>>>>>well defined return codes. Nevertheless, they fit the model and >>>>>>>semantics of classes and hence should integrated into the same rules >>>>>>>for consistency. I also agree with Bronis, though, that larger >>>>>>>feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change the >>>>>>>following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would essentially >>>>>>>follow option b): >>>>>>> >>>>>>>All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>>>>>cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>>>>>>defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>before >>> >>> >>>>>>>Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very useful, >>>>>>>but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we decide this is >>>>>>>too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>About 1. question: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the Annex >>>>>>>>according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes" >>>>>>>>into "Error classes". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table >>>>>>>>svn r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return >>>>>>>>codes" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The Tools group should decide whether >>>>>>>>a. they want to stay with special return codes that are not >>>>>>>>part of the rule in Set. 8.4 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In this case they should change "return code" >>>>>>>>into "error codes are returned" plus noting that >>>>>>>>the routine MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied >>>>>>>>with the open question, whether MPI_EEROR_STRING >>>>>>>>can be applied before a call to MPI_INIT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its >>>>>>>>returned error code: >>>>>>>>One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>>>>>callable before MPI_INIT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, >>>>>>>>then new table 14.5 must show "Error classes". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_... >>>>>>>>into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>>>>>callable before MPI_INIT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I would prefer solution b together combined with the >>>>>>>>minimal solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., >>>>>>>>adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING to >>>>>>>>the list of routines callable outside of MPI's >>>>>>>>initialization. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>> >>> >>>>>>>>svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex >>>>>>>>svn r1508: done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Rolf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>>>>>To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>>>>Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >>>>>>>>>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>Rolf: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT. >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>As said before, we need more opinions on the first question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Bronis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Rolf: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Re: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, >>>>>>>>>>>(Profiling/Tools chapter responsibles) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>(you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that list) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Two important questions: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong: >>>>>>>>>>>The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error >>>>>>>>>>>list and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this. >>>>>>>>>>>For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>>>>>>and >>>>>>>>>>>cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>>>>>implementation." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The above wording clearly states that the return values >>>>>>>>>>should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So, >>>>>>>>>>either the above wording needs to change (I do not see >>>>>>>>>>why MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from >>>>>>>>>>MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that >>>>>>>>>>they were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt >>>>>>>>>>something like what you suggest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I think we need broader opinions to make the decision. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 >>>>>>>>>>has led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader >>>>>>>>>>changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can >>>>>>>>>>easily lead to suboptimal solutions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Bronis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>may be modified into >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>>>>>>and >>>>>>>>>>>cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>>>>>implementation and satisfy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. " >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>or >>>>>>>>>>>0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <= >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>or >>>>>>>>>>>0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE < >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>be also >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>repeated >>>>>>>>>>>in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_SUCCESS. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"The error codes satisfy, >>>>>>>>>>>0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: " >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please confirm, that Alexander is right, >>>>>>>>>>>please include me in your discussion and >>>>>>>>>>>please tell me your result >>>>>>>>>>>that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>>>>>>and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming: >>>>>>>>>>>Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the names >>>>>>>>>>>used in the past: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use >>>>>>>>>>>abbrevations) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>or >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>use >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>abbrevations) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>As far as I see, you can do the underscores. >>>>>>>>>>>Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Current longest MPI_T constants: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>123456789012345678901234567890 >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your MPI_T >>>>>>>>>>>rule: >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-without- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>underscores> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>i.e., I would only change >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please tell me also your decision >>>>>>>>>>>that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>>>>>>and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Best regards >>>>>>>>>>>Rolf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>______________________________________________________________________ >>>__ >>> >>> >>>>>>>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>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) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>______________________________________________________________________ >>>__ >>> >>> >>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>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 >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >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-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
by Bronis R. de Supinski 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

These are good points. I withdraw my agreement to the changes until Martin or Rolf addresses them. On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Mohror, Kathryn wrote: > I have some concerns over this. > >> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >> outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. >> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know >> the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. > > If we are going to treat MPI_T error codes the same way they are in the rest of the standard, does it make sense to say that "only classes are returned" by MPI_T calls? I think that MPI calls return codes and the codes are translated to classes by the MPI_ERROR_CLASS function. > > If MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING are not available before MPI_Init, then this may be a hardship on tools. I imagine many tools doing a significant amount of set up before MPI_Init to avoid overhead. However, if there is no information about what the return codes mean, then tools may have difficulty. > > Possibly it makes more sense to treat MPI_T return values differently than MPI calls? Could the MPI_T return values be a set of defined codes instead? > > Does anyone have different insight on error codes vs classes? > > Kathryn > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >> bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:37 AM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >> >> >> OK by me. >> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Dave Goodell wrote: >> >>> I agree, we should make these changes. >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:55 AM CDT, Schulz, Martin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Rolf, all, >>>> >>>> I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes. >> Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the chapter >> committee for tools) should concur, though. >>>> >>>> Anybody else have any concerns over these changes? >>>> >>>> As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree - let's target those in >> 3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Martin et al., >>>>> >>>>> Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface" >>>>> last sentence reads >>>>> >>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>> implementation. >>>>> >>>>> but should read >>>>> >>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>>>> cannot overlap with any other >>>>> error codes and error classes >>>>>> returned by the MPI >>>>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>>>>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions, >>>>> especially they must satisfy >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>> >>>>> 2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by >>>>> >>>>> Error classes >>>>> Error classes (continued) >>>>> Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface >>>>> >>>>> and these lines should read >>>>> >>>>> Error classes >>>>> Error classes (continued) >>>>> Error classes (continued) >>>>> >>>>> 3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table >>>>> >>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>> >>>>> should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table. >>>>> >>>>> Okay? >>>>> >>>>> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and >> MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>> outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. >>>>> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know >>>>> the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute >>>>> the changes in chap-appLang. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Rolf >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and >> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>>> Hi Rolf, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in several >>>>>> meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally agree with your >>>>>> comments below. However, they are not really error classes (at least >>>>>> in the tools group we/I never thought about them this way), but just >>>>>> well defined return codes. Nevertheless, they fit the model and >>>>>> semantics of classes and hence should integrated into the same rules >>>>>> for consistency. I also agree with Bronis, though, that larger >>>>>> feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change the >>>>>> following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would essentially >>>>>> follow option b): >>>>>> >>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>>>>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable >> before >>>>>> Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very useful, >>>>>> but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we decide this is >>>>>> too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> About 1. question: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the Annex >>>>>>> according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes" >>>>>>> into "Error classes". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table >>>>>>> svn r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return >>>>>>> codes" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Tools group should decide whether >>>>>>> a. they want to stay with special return codes that are not >>>>>>> part of the rule in Set. 8.4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case they should change "return code" >>>>>>> into "error codes are returned" plus noting that >>>>>>> the routine MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied >>>>>>> with the open question, whether MPI_EEROR_STRING >>>>>>> can be applied before a call to MPI_INIT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its >>>>>>> returned error code: >>>>>>> One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>>>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, >>>>>>> then new table 14.5 must show "Error classes". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_... >>>>>>> into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>>>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would prefer solution b together combined with the >>>>>>> minimal solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., >>>>>>> adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING to >>>>>>> the list of routines callable outside of MPI's >>>>>>> initialization. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_> >> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex >>>>>>> svn r1508: done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>>> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and >> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>>>>> Rolf: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to >> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As said before, we need more opinions on the first question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rolf: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>>>> Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, >>>>>>>>>> (Profiling/Tools chapter responsibles) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that list) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Two important questions: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong: >>>>>>>>>> The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error >>>>>>>>>> list and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this. >>>>>>>>>> For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>>>> implementation." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The above wording clearly states that the return values >>>>>>>>> should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So, >>>>>>>>> either the above wording needs to change (I do not see >>>>>>>>> why MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from >>>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that >>>>>>>>> they were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt >>>>>>>>> something like what you suggest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think we need broader opinions to make the decision. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 >>>>>>>>> has led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader >>>>>>>>> changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can >>>>>>>>> easily lead to suboptimal solutions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> may be modified into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>>>> implementation and satisfy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <= >>>>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE < >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may >> be also >>>>>>>>>> repeated >>>>>>>>>> in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value >>>>>>>>>> MPI_SUCCESS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The error codes satisfy, >>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please confirm, that Alexander is right, >>>>>>>>>> please include me in your discussion and >>>>>>>>>> please tell me your result >>>>>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming: >>>>>>>>>> Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the names >>>>>>>>>> used in the past: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use >>>>>>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not >> use >>>>>>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As far as I see, you can do the underscores. >>>>>>>>>> Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Current longest MPI_T constants: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 123456789012345678901234567890 >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your MPI_T >>>>>>>>>> rule: >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-without- >> underscores> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i.e., I would only change >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please tell me also your decision >>>>>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> __ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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) >>>> >>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> __ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
by Mohror, Kathryn 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

I have some concerns over this. > The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING > outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. > This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know > the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. If we are going to treat MPI_T error codes the same way they are in the rest of the standard, does it make sense to say that "only classes are returned" by MPI_T calls? I think that MPI calls return codes and the codes are translated to classes by the MPI_ERROR_CLASS function. If MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING are not available before MPI_Init, then this may be a hardship on tools. I imagine many tools doing a significant amount of set up before MPI_Init to avoid overhead. However, if there is no information about what the return codes mean, then tools may have difficulty. Possibly it makes more sense to treat MPI_T return values differently than MPI calls? Could the MPI_T return values be a set of defined codes instead? Does anyone have different insight on error codes vs classes? Kathryn > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:37 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE > > > OK by me. > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Dave Goodell wrote: > > > I agree, we should make these changes. > > > > -Dave > > > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:55 AM CDT, Schulz, Martin wrote: > > > >> Hi Rolf, all, > >> > >> I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes. > Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the chapter > committee for tools) should concur, though. > >> > >> Anybody else have any concerns over these changes? > >> > >> As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree - let's target those in > 3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> > >>> Martin et al., > >>> > >>> Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend: > >>> > >>> 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface" > >>> last sentence reads > >>> > >>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and > >>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI > >>> implementation. > >>> > >>> but should read > >>> > >>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and > >>>> cannot overlap with any other > >>> error codes and error classes > >>>> returned by the MPI > >>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as > >>>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions, > >>> especially they must satisfy > >>> > >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. > >>> > >>> 2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by > >>> > >>> Error classes > >>> Error classes (continued) > >>> Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface > >>> > >>> and these lines should read > >>> > >>> Error classes > >>> Error classes (continued) > >>> Error classes (continued) > >>> > >>> 3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table > >>> > >>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE > >>> > >>> should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table. > >>> > >>> Okay? > >>> > >>> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and > MPI_ERROR_STRING > >>> outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. > >>> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know > >>> the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. > >>> > >>> I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute > >>> the changes in chap-appLang. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Rolf > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> > >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and > MPI_ERR_LASTCODE > >>>> Hi Rolf, all, > >>>> > >>>> I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in several > >>>> meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally agree with your > >>>> comments below. However, they are not really error classes (at least > >>>> in the tools group we/I never thought about them this way), but just > >>>> well defined return codes. Nevertheless, they fit the model and > >>>> semantics of classes and hence should integrated into the same rules > >>>> for consistency. I also agree with Bronis, though, that larger > >>>> feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it. > >>>> > >>>> To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change the > >>>> following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would essentially > >>>> follow option b): > >>>> > >>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and > >>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI > >>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as > >>>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions. > >>>> > >>>> This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary. > >>>> > >>>> As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable > before > >>>> Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very useful, > >>>> but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we decide this is > >>>> too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> About 1. question: > >>>>> > >>>>> I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the Annex > >>>>> according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes" > >>>>> into "Error classes". > >>>>> > >>>>> svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table > >>>>> svn r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return > >>>>> codes" > >>>>> > >>>>> The Tools group should decide whether > >>>>> a. they want to stay with special return codes that are not > >>>>> part of the rule in Set. 8.4 > >>>>> > >>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE > >>>>> > >>>>> In this case they should change "return code" > >>>>> into "error codes are returned" plus noting that > >>>>> the routine MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied > >>>>> with the open question, whether MPI_EEROR_STRING > >>>>> can be applied before a call to MPI_INIT. > >>>>> > >>>>> Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its > >>>>> returned error code: > >>>>> One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING > >>>>> callable before MPI_INIT. > >>>>> > >>>>> b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, > >>>>> then new table 14.5 must show "Error classes". > >>>>> > >>>>> In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_... > >>>>> into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule. > >>>>> > >>>>> You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING > >>>>> callable before MPI_INIT. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would prefer solution b together combined with the > >>>>> minimal solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., > >>>>> adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING to > >>>>> the list of routines callable outside of MPI's > >>>>> initialization. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_> > MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT > >>>>> > >>>>> svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex > >>>>> svn r1508: done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex > >>>>> > >>>>> Rolf > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> > >>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>>>> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and > MPI_ERR_LASTCODE > >>>>>> Rolf: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to > MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As said before, we need more opinions on the first question. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bronis > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rolf: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Re: > >>>>>>>> Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, > >>>>>>>> (Profiling/Tools chapter responsibles) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that list) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Two important questions: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong: > >>>>>>>> The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error > >>>>>>>> list and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this. > >>>>>>>> For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI > >>>>>>>> implementation." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The above wording clearly states that the return values > >>>>>>> should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So, > >>>>>>> either the above wording needs to change (I do not see > >>>>>>> why MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from > >>>>>>> MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that > >>>>>>> they were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt > >>>>>>> something like what you suggest. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we need broader opinions to make the decision. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 > >>>>>>> has led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader > >>>>>>> changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can > >>>>>>> easily lead to suboptimal solutions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bronis > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> may be modified into > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI > >>>>>>>> implementation and satisfy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. " > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <= > >>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE < > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may > be also > >>>>>>>> repeated > >>>>>>>> in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value > >>>>>>>> MPI_SUCCESS. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "The error codes satisfy, > >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: " > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please confirm, that Alexander is right, > >>>>>>>> please include me in your discussion and > >>>>>>>> please tell me your result > >>>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang > >>>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming: > >>>>>>>> Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the names > >>>>>>>> used in the past: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use > >>>>>>>> abbrevations) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not > use > >>>>>>>> abbrevations) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As far as I see, you can do the underscores. > >>>>>>>> Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Current longest MPI_T constants: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 123456789012345678901234567890 > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your MPI_T > >>>>>>>> rule: > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-without- > underscores> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> i.e., I would only change > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please tell me also your decision > >>>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang > >>>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>> Rolf > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > >>>> 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 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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) > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > >> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
by Bronis R. de Supinski 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

OK by me. On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Dave Goodell wrote: > I agree, we should make these changes. > > -Dave > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:55 AM CDT, Schulz, Martin wrote: > >> Hi Rolf, all, >> >> I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes. Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the chapter committee for tools) should concur, though. >> >> Anybody else have any concerns over these changes? >> >> As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree - let's target those in 3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Martin >> >> >> On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >>> Martin et al., >>> >>> Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend: >>> >>> 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface" >>> last sentence reads >>> >>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>> implementation. >>> >>> but should read >>> >>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>> cannot overlap with any other >>> error codes and error classes >>>> returned by the MPI >>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions, >>> especially they must satisfy >>> >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>> >>> 2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by >>> >>> Error classes >>> Error classes (continued) >>> Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface >>> >>> and these lines should read >>> >>> Error classes >>> Error classes (continued) >>> Error classes (continued) >>> >>> 3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table >>> >>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>> >>> should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table. >>> >>> Okay? >>> >>> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>> outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. >>> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know >>> the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. >>> >>> I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute >>> the changes in chap-appLang. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>> Hi Rolf, all, >>>> >>>> I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in several >>>> meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally agree with your >>>> comments below. However, they are not really error classes (at least >>>> in the tools group we/I never thought about them this way), but just >>>> well defined return codes. Nevertheless, they fit the model and >>>> semantics of classes and hence should integrated into the same rules >>>> for consistency. I also agree with Bronis, though, that larger >>>> feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it. >>>> >>>> To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change the >>>> following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would essentially >>>> follow option b): >>>> >>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions. >>>> >>>> This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary. >>>> >>>> As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable before >>>> Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very useful, >>>> but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we decide this is >>>> too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>>> >>>>> About 1. question: >>>>> >>>>> I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the Annex >>>>> according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes" >>>>> into "Error classes". >>>>> >>>>> svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table >>>>> svn r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return >>>>> codes" >>>>> >>>>> The Tools group should decide whether >>>>> a. they want to stay with special return codes that are not >>>>> part of the rule in Set. 8.4 >>>>> >>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>> >>>>> In this case they should change "return code" >>>>> into "error codes are returned" plus noting that >>>>> the routine MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied >>>>> with the open question, whether MPI_EEROR_STRING >>>>> can be applied before a call to MPI_INIT. >>>>> >>>>> Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its >>>>> returned error code: >>>>> One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>>>> >>>>> b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, >>>>> then new table 14.5 must show "Error classes". >>>>> >>>>> In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_... >>>>> into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule. >>>>> >>>>> You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>>>> >>>>> I would prefer solution b together combined with the >>>>> minimal solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., >>>>> adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING to >>>>> the list of routines callable outside of MPI's >>>>> initialization. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>> >>>>> svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex >>>>> svn r1508: done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>> >>>>> Rolf >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>>> Rolf: >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT. >>>>>> >>>>>> As said before, we need more opinions on the first question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rolf: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>> Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, >>>>>>>> (Profiling/Tools chapter responsibles) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that list) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong: >>>>>>>> The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error >>>>>>>> list and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this. >>>>>>>> For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>> implementation." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above wording clearly states that the return values >>>>>>> should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So, >>>>>>> either the above wording needs to change (I do not see >>>>>>> why MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from >>>>>>> MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that >>>>>>> they were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt >>>>>>> something like what you suggest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we need broader opinions to make the decision. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 >>>>>>> has led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader >>>>>>> changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can >>>>>>> easily lead to suboptimal solutions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> may be modified into >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>>> implementation and satisfy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <= >>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE < >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may be also >>>>>>>> repeated >>>>>>>> in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value >>>>>>>> MPI_SUCCESS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The error codes satisfy, >>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please confirm, that Alexander is right, >>>>>>>> please include me in your discussion and >>>>>>>> please tell me your result >>>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming: >>>>>>>> Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the names >>>>>>>> used in the past: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use >>>>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not use >>>>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I see, you can do the underscores. >>>>>>>> Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Current longest MPI_T constants: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 123456789012345678901234567890 >>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK >>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK >>>>>>>> MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your MPI_T >>>>>>>> rule: >>>>>>>> MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-without-underscores> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i.e., I would only change >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please tell me also your decision >>>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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) >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
by Dave Goodell 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

I agree, we should make these changes. -Dave On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:55 AM CDT, Schulz, Martin wrote: > Hi Rolf, all, > > I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes. Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the chapter committee for tools) should concur, though. > > Anybody else have any concerns over these changes? > > As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree - let's target those in 3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits. > > Thanks, > > Martin > > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> Martin et al., >> >> Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend: >> >> 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface" >> last sentence reads >> >> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >> implementation. >> >> but should read >> >>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>> cannot overlap with any other >> error codes and error classes >>> returned by the MPI >>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions, >> especially they must satisfy >> >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >> >> 2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by >> >> Error classes >> Error classes (continued) >> Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface >> >> and these lines should read >> >> Error classes >> Error classes (continued) >> Error classes (continued) >> >> 3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table >> >> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >> >> should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table. >> >> Okay? >> >> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >> outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. >> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know >> the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. >> >> I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute >> the changes in chap-appLang. >> >> Best regards >> Rolf >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>> Hi Rolf, all, >>> >>> I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in several >>> meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally agree with your >>> comments below. However, they are not really error classes (at least >>> in the tools group we/I never thought about them this way), but just >>> well defined return codes. Nevertheless, they fit the model and >>> semantics of classes and hence should integrated into the same rules >>> for consistency. I also agree with Bronis, though, that larger >>> feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it. >>> >>> To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change the >>> following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would essentially >>> follow option b): >>> >>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >>> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions. >>> >>> This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary. >>> >>> As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable before >>> Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very useful, >>> but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we decide this is >>> too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >>> >>>> About 1. question: >>>> >>>> I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the Annex >>>> according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes" >>>> into "Error classes". >>>> >>>> svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table >>>> svn r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return >>>> codes" >>>> >>>> The Tools group should decide whether >>>> a. they want to stay with special return codes that are not >>>> part of the rule in Set. 8.4 >>>> >>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>> >>>> In this case they should change "return code" >>>> into "error codes are returned" plus noting that >>>> the routine MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied >>>> with the open question, whether MPI_EEROR_STRING >>>> can be applied before a call to MPI_INIT. >>>> >>>> Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its >>>> returned error code: >>>> One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>>> >>>> b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, >>>> then new table 14.5 must show "Error classes". >>>> >>>> In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_... >>>> into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule. >>>> >>>> You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>>> >>>> I would prefer solution b together combined with the >>>> minimal solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., >>>> adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING to >>>> the list of routines callable outside of MPI's >>>> initialization. >>>> >>>> >>>> About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>> >>>> svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex >>>> svn r1508: done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>> >>>> Rolf >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> >>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>>> Rolf: >>>>> >>>>> OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT. >>>>> >>>>> As said before, we need more opinions on the first question. >>>>> >>>>> Bronis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rolf: >>>>>> >>>>>> Re: >>>>>>> Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, >>>>>>> (Profiling/Tools chapter responsibles) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that list) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong: >>>>>>> The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error >>>>>>> list and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this. >>>>>>> For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>> implementation." >>>>>> >>>>>> The above wording clearly states that the return values >>>>>> should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So, >>>>>> either the above wording needs to change (I do not see >>>>>> why MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from >>>>>> MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that >>>>>> they were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt >>>>>> something like what you suggest. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need broader opinions to make the decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 >>>>>> has led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader >>>>>> changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can >>>>>> easily lead to suboptimal solutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> may be modified into >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>>> implementation and satisfy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <= >>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE < >>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may be also >>>>>>> repeated >>>>>>> in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value >>>>>>> MPI_SUCCESS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The error codes satisfy, >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please confirm, that Alexander is right, >>>>>>> please include me in your discussion and >>>>>>> please tell me your result >>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming: >>>>>>> Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the names >>>>>>> used in the past: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use >>>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not use >>>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I see, you can do the underscores. >>>>>>> Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current longest MPI_T constants: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 123456789012345678901234567890 >>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK >>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK >>>>>>> MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your MPI_T >>>>>>> rule: >>>>>>> MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-without-underscores> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i.e., I would only change >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please tell me also your decision >>>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> Rolf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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) > > ________________________________________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_INFO_GET_ENV naming question
by Rolf Rabenseifner 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

Done in r1518 in all three files. Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Bosilca" <bosilca(a)eecs.utk.edu> > To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > Cc: "Josh Hursey" <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>, "Marc Snir" <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov>, "Main MPI Forum mailing list" > <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 5:02:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_INFO_GET_ENV naming question > Absolutely, this change makes perfect sense. If you can't get to it in > time, let me know I might have some time later today to address it. > > Regards, > george. > > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 11:09 , Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > > > George et al., > > > > can I change MPI_INFO_GET_ENV into MPI_INFO_ENV > > in one step in all three chapters: > > chap-inquiry > > chap-appLang > > chap-changes > > ? > > > > Best regards > > Rolf > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> > >> To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > >> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:40:35 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_INFO_GET_ENV naming question > >> Hi Rolf, all, > >> > >> (this is mainly directed at George, Marc, and the Environment > >> chapter > >> committee) > >> > >> On Jul 22, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> > >>> Martin, > >>> > >>> Can we take this as a decision? > >>> So far there is no objection. > >> > >> I am very much in favor of it - I think it makes things much less > >> confusing. Also, I agree, so far all comments were in favor of the > >> change. > >> > >>> It must be changed in tools and appLang, therefore, I need a clear > >>> decision for appLang (as chapter author). > >> > >> It doesn't affect the tools chapter - it's in the environment > >> chapter > >> that I helped edit for the time of the meeting in Chicago. This is > >> George's chapter and Marc's ticket, though, and we haven't heard > >> from > >> them. Also, George would have to implement it or at least OK the > >> change. I can make the changes, if this is our decision, but I > >> would > >> need to hear from George before going in and editing. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Please tell. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Rolf > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> > >>>> To: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov>, "Main MPI Forum mailing > >>>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:11:41 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_INFO_GET_ENV naming question > >>>> I prefer MPI_INFO_ENV . Using GET in the name will be confusing. > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Schulz, Martin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> During the chapter review for Chapter 8, the environment > >>>>> chapter, > >>>>> a > >>>>> question came up at the forum, which we thought requires wider > >>>>> feedback. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ticket 313 introduced an info object into MPI 3.0 that allows > >>>>> users > >>>>> to query the environment, which is called MPI_INFO_GET_ENV. This > >>>>> name, however, contains a verb and hence follows the naming > >>>>> structure of an MPI function, but is a constant. Hence, should > >>>>> we > >>>>> really go with this name or should we rename this into a name > >>>>> without a verb, like MPI_INFO_ENV, to avoid confusion? People in > >>>>> the > >>>>> room were leaning towards the latter and this is clearly ticket > >>>>> 0 > >>>>> at > >>>>> this point, but we wanted to ask to make sure there is no > >>>>> unintended > >>>>> impact with that change. > >>>>> > >>>>> Comments? > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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) > >> > >> ________________________________________________________________________ > >> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > >> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > -- > > 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) -- 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_INFO_GET_ENV naming question
by George Bosilca 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

Absolutely, this change makes perfect sense. If you can't get to it in time, let me know I might have some time later today to address it. Regards, george. On Jul 23, 2012, at 11:09 , Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > George et al., > > can I change MPI_INFO_GET_ENV into MPI_INFO_ENV > in one step in all three chapters: > chap-inquiry > chap-appLang > chap-changes > ? > > Best regards > Rolf > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >> To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:40:35 AM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_INFO_GET_ENV naming question >> Hi Rolf, all, >> >> (this is mainly directed at George, Marc, and the Environment chapter >> committee) >> >> On Jul 22, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >>> Martin, >>> >>> Can we take this as a decision? >>> So far there is no objection. >> >> I am very much in favor of it - I think it makes things much less >> confusing. Also, I agree, so far all comments were in favor of the >> change. >> >>> It must be changed in tools and appLang, therefore, I need a clear >>> decision for appLang (as chapter author). >> >> It doesn't affect the tools chapter - it's in the environment chapter >> that I helped edit for the time of the meeting in Chicago. This is >> George's chapter and Marc's ticket, though, and we haven't heard from >> them. Also, George would have to implement it or at least OK the >> change. I can make the changes, if this is our decision, but I would >> need to hear from George before going in and editing. >> >> Martin >> >> >>> >>> Please tell. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> >>>> To: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov>, "Main MPI Forum mailing >>>> list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:11:41 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_INFO_GET_ENV naming question >>>> I prefer MPI_INFO_ENV . Using GET in the name will be confusing. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Schulz, Martin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> During the chapter review for Chapter 8, the environment chapter, >>>>> a >>>>> question came up at the forum, which we thought requires wider >>>>> feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Ticket 313 introduced an info object into MPI 3.0 that allows >>>>> users >>>>> to query the environment, which is called MPI_INFO_GET_ENV. This >>>>> name, however, contains a verb and hence follows the naming >>>>> structure of an MPI function, but is a constant. Hence, should we >>>>> really go with this name or should we rename this into a name >>>>> without a verb, like MPI_INFO_ENV, to avoid confusion? People in >>>>> the >>>>> room were leaning towards the latter and this is clearly ticket 0 >>>>> at >>>>> this point, but we wanted to ask to make sure there is no >>>>> unintended >>>>> impact with that change. >>>>> >>>>> Comments? >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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) >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm >> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > -- > 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-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
by Schulz, Martin 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

Hi Rolf, all, I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes. Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the chapter committee for tools) should concur, though. Anybody else have any concerns over these changes? As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree - let's target those in 3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits. Thanks, Martin On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > Martin et al., > > Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend: > > 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface" > last sentence reads > > All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and > cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI > implementation. > > but should read > >> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >> cannot overlap with any other > error codes and error classes >> returned by the MPI >> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions, > especially they must satisfy > >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. > > 2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by > > Error classes > Error classes (continued) > Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface > > and these lines should read > > Error classes > Error classes (continued) > Error classes (continued) > > 3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table > > MPI_ERR_LASTCODE > > should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table. > > Okay? > > The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING > outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1. > This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know > the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned. > > I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute > the changes in chap-appLang. > > Best regards > Rolf > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >> Hi Rolf, all, >> >> I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in several >> meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally agree with your >> comments below. However, they are not really error classes (at least >> in the tools group we/I never thought about them this way), but just >> well defined return codes. Nevertheless, they fit the model and >> semantics of classes and hence should integrated into the same rules >> for consistency. I also agree with Bronis, though, that larger >> feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it. >> >> To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change the >> following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would essentially >> follow option b): >> >> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values and >> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error classes as >> defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions. >> >> This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary. >> >> As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable before >> Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very useful, >> but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we decide this is >> too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >>> About 1. question: >>> >>> I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the Annex >>> according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes" >>> into "Error classes". >>> >>> svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table >>> svn r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return >>> codes" >>> >>> The Tools group should decide whether >>> a. they want to stay with special return codes that are not >>> part of the rule in Set. 8.4 >>> >>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>> >>> In this case they should change "return code" >>> into "error codes are returned" plus noting that >>> the routine MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied >>> with the open question, whether MPI_EEROR_STRING >>> can be applied before a call to MPI_INIT. >>> >>> Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its >>> returned error code: >>> One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>> >>> b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, >>> then new table 14.5 must show "Error classes". >>> >>> In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_... >>> into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule. >>> >>> You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING >>> callable before MPI_INIT. >>> >>> I would prefer solution b together combined with the >>> minimal solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., >>> adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING to >>> the list of routines callable outside of MPI's >>> initialization. >>> >>> >>> About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>> >>> svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex >>> svn r1508: done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>> >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis(a)llnl.gov> >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE >>>> Rolf: >>>> >>>> OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT. >>>> >>>> As said before, we need more opinions on the first question. >>>> >>>> Bronis >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rolf: >>>>> >>>>> Re: >>>>>> Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, >>>>>> (Profiling/Tools chapter responsibles) >>>>>> >>>>>> (you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that list) >>>>>> >>>>>> Two important questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong: >>>>>> The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error >>>>>> list and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex >>>>>> >>>>>> Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this. >>>>>> For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9 >>>>>> >>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>> and >>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>> implementation." >>>>> >>>>> The above wording clearly states that the return values >>>>> should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So, >>>>> either the above wording needs to change (I do not see >>>>> why MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from >>>>> MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that >>>>> they were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt >>>>> something like what you suggest. >>>>> >>>>> I think we need broader opinions to make the decision. >>>>> >>>>> I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 >>>>> has led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader >>>>> changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can >>>>> easily lead to suboptimal solutions. >>>>> >>>>> Bronis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> may be modified into >>>>>> >>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values >>>>>> and >>>>>> cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the MPI >>>>>> implementation and satisfy >>>>>> >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. " >>>>>> >>>>>> or >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <= >>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>> >>>>>> or >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE < >>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE. >>>>>> >>>>>> and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may be also >>>>>> repeated >>>>>> in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value >>>>>> MPI_SUCCESS. >>>>>> >>>>>> This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence >>>>>> >>>>>> "The error codes satisfy, >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: " >>>>>> >>>>>> Please confirm, that Alexander is right, >>>>>> please include me in your discussion and >>>>>> please tell me your result >>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming: >>>>>> Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the names >>>>>> used in the past: >>>>>> >>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use >>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>> >>>>>> or >>>>>> >>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not use >>>>>> abbrevations) >>>>>> >>>>>> In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I see, you can do the underscores. >>>>>> Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current longest MPI_T constants: >>>>>> >>>>>> 123456789012345678901234567890 >>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK >>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK >>>>>> MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your MPI_T >>>>>> rule: >>>>>> MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-without-underscores> >>>>>> >>>>>> i.e., I would only change >>>>>> >>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT >>>>>> >>>>>> Please tell me also your decision >>>>>> that I can do the correct changes in chap-appLang >>>>>> and you in chap-tools. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Rolf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- > 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) ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Chapter Reviews
by William Gropp 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

I've fixed the script that generates the language binding sections to skip those that are empty. Bill 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 On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >> 759/25-27: Remove these lines: empty sections. > > It is hard to do because they are generated automatically. > I'll ask Bill. > >> 788/18: Remove this line: the section is empty. > > It is hard to do because they are generated automatically. > I'll ask Bill.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Chapter Reviews
by Bronis R. de Supinski 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

Rolf: I did not review them as I left Chicago before that part of the meeting. Bronis On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > Rich, Brian, Bronis, and reviewers of > - Chap 15 Deprecated > - Chap 16 Removed Functions > - Chap 17 Language Bindings > > Please can I get the info, who took these 3 chapters for reviewing? > I only remember that Bronis or Brian took one of these. > > (Alexander Supalov did Annex A. > and I already made most corrections based on his reply) > > Best regards > Rolf > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Richard Graham" <richardg(a)mellanox.com> >> To: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:44:44 PM >> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Chapter Reviews >> We are currently doing chapter reviews for the forum – all tickets are >> committed and reviewed. If anyone has changes to make please >> coordinate this morning (Thursday 7/19/2012 – Chicago time) with the >> person who is doing the review. After these are done, responsibility >> will revert to the chapter committees. I will send out a separate >> note on the timelines we agreed to yesterday, but in a nutshell, all >> changes must be completed and reviewed by Thursday 7/26/2012, 5pm >> Pacific time, so that we can prepare a draft version to be posted for >> comment. >> >> >> >> If someone remote would like to take the responsibility for an >> unclaimed chapter, please let me know. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rich >> >> >> >> Chapter Reviewer >> >> Front Matter Mohamad >> >> Chap 1 Brian B. >> >> Chap 2 Scott >> >> Chap 3 Anh >> >> Chap 4 Terry >> >> Chap 5 Nathan >> >> Chap 6 Darius >> >> Chap 7 Shinji >> >> Chap 8 Pavan >> >> Chap 9 Howard - done >> >> Chap 10 Hideyuki >> >> Chap 11 Howard >> >> Chap 12 Brian S. >> >> Chap 13 Brian S. >> >> Chap 14 Rich >> >> Chap 15 >> >> Chap 16 >> >> Chap 17 >> >> Appendix A >> >> Appendix B Jeff/Rolf >> >> Bib >> >> Indices >> _______________________________________________ >> 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