February 2013 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

No need for Fortran WG meeting
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Martin - It turns out that I will be the only Fortran WG member in Chicago, so I don't think we need the 9-10am Tuesday slot. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Agenda for March 2013 Meeting
by Schulz, Martin 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

Hi all, The final agenda is now posted at the MPI website (based on the feedback from last week). Monday/Tuesday will be for working groups (two tracks on Tuesday). Wednesday/Thursday will be for plenaries (with general forum business scheduled for Wednesday morning). Votes will be Thursday morning. The following tickets are scheduled for readings: - RMA errata: 347, 348, 350, 355, 359, 361, 362 - MPI_T errata: 360 - 1st reading: 357 We'll have votes on all errata tickets, as well as the voting rules document discussed Wednesday morning. Please let me know if there is anything missing from this list - the deadline is today! Thanks! Martin PS: Don't forget to register if you plan on attending. ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Agenda for March Meeting & Last Call for Errata items/Votes
by Schulz, Martin 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

Yes, sorry - my mistake. These discussions are scheduled for Wednesday morning (the full plenary day). Thursday morning will be for all votes. Martin On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:58 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > >> Note that Thursday morning will be dedicated to MPI forum business and will include discussions on the voting document that Jeff and Brian have been spearheading and the possibility of forming an ARB. [snip] > > > According to the agenda on the web site, I think you meant *Wednesday* morning, right? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Agenda for March Meeting & Last Call for Errata items/Votes
by Richard Graham 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

Martin, How about if we add a short 1/2 hour meeting for the group that was discussing the idea of the ARB before the full forum meeting, just as a followup on the last call we had ? Also, I am listed in neighborhood collectives. I can't keep track of all the different types of collectives that are being suggested, but the conversation we needed to have is on the sparse V collectives. Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schulz, Martin Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:09 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] Agenda for March Meeting & Last Call for Errata items/Votes Hi all, I have updated the agenda for the upcoming MPI forum meeting on 3/11-3/14 based on the (limited) feedback I got in the last few weeks. The agenda is available on the web as well as below. Please check the agenda, especially if you are listed as a lead for one of the plenaries or working groups and let me know if there are any changes. We'll have working groups only on Monday and Tuesday followed by plenaries Wednesday and Thursday. As it stands right now, i.e., if there are no more additions to the agenda, we'll finish on Thursday at lunch time (which means we won't have any catered lunch). Note that Thursday morning will be dedicated to MPI forum business and will include discussions on the voting document that Jeff and Brian have been spearheading and the possibility of forming an ARB. I also would like to restart the tradition that we had during the early part of the MPI 3 process that each WG lead briefly reports on the activities in the WG (either just talking or AT MOST one slide). I think this was helpful to see what kind of proposals are likely to come up in the forum in the future. Also note that next Monday 2/25 (two weeks before the forum) is the last day to request readings/votes of errata items (by making the full text available) or to request any formal readings. After next Monday the agenda will be final. Thanks! Martin PS: Don't forget to register - the links are on the website. Monday, March 11, 2013 - Working Groups 1:00pm - 3:00pm Tools and FT WGs: Piggybacking / Vector Send/Recv 3:00pm - 3:30pm Break 3:30pm - 5:30pm P2P WG: Recvreduce Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - Working Groups 9:00am - 10:00pm Collectives WG: MPI_Alltoallwt 9:00am - 10:00pm Fortran WG: Init discussion 10:00am - 10:15am Break 10:15am - 12:00pm Tools WG: Debugging Interfaces 10:15am - 12:00pm I/O WG 12:00pm - 1:00pm Lunch break 1:00pm - 3:00pm Gen. Req. WG 1:00pm - 2:00pm Fault Tolerance and RMA WG 2:00pm - 3:00pm Fault Tolerance WG 3:00pm - 3:30pm Break 3:30pm - 5:30pm RMA WG: Iwin_create and Iwin_allocate 3:30pm - 5:30pm Fault Tolerance WG Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - Plenary 9:00am - 9:15am Working Group Updates (Working group leads) 9:15am - 11:00am Discussion on MPI 3.1/4.0 Voting Rules Document (Jeff S.) 11:00am - 11:15am Break 11:15am - 12:00pm Discussion/Update on MPI Architecture Review Board 12:00pm - 1:00pm Lunch break (continued ARB discussion) 1:00pm - 2:00pm Reading: MPI 3.0 RMA Errata (tickets 347, 348, 350, 355) 2:00pm - 2:15pm Reading: MPI_T 3.0 Errata (ticket 360) 2:15pm - 3:00pm Neighborhood Collectives (Rich) 3:00pm - 3:30pm Break 3:30pm - 5:00pm Hybrid WG Plenary (Pavan) 5:00pm - 6:00pm MPI_Recv_reduce plenary (Jeff H.) Thursday, March 14, 2013 - Plenary 9:00am - 10:00am Official votes on Errata and Voting Rules 10:00am - 11:00am Discussion on MPI_Sendv / MPI_Recvv (Fab) 11:00am - 11:15am Break 11:15am - 12:00pm Safe mechanisms to return strings (Fab) 12:00pm - 1:00pm Break ________________________________________________________________________ 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] Agenda for March Meeting & Last Call for Errata items/Votes
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

On Feb 19, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > Note that Thursday morning will be dedicated to MPI forum business and will include discussions on the voting document that Jeff and Brian have been spearheading and the possibility of forming an ARB. [snip] According to the agenda on the web site, I think you meant *Wednesday* morning, right? -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Agenda for March Meeting & Last Call for Errata items/Votes
by Schulz, Martin 19 Feb '13

19 Feb '13

Hi all, I have updated the agenda for the upcoming MPI forum meeting on 3/11-3/14 based on the (limited) feedback I got in the last few weeks. The agenda is available on the web as well as below. Please check the agenda, especially if you are listed as a lead for one of the plenaries or working groups and let me know if there are any changes. We'll have working groups only on Monday and Tuesday followed by plenaries Wednesday and Thursday. As it stands right now, i.e., if there are no more additions to the agenda, we'll finish on Thursday at lunch time (which means we won't have any catered lunch). Note that Thursday morning will be dedicated to MPI forum business and will include discussions on the voting document that Jeff and Brian have been spearheading and the possibility of forming an ARB. I also would like to restart the tradition that we had during the early part of the MPI 3 process that each WG lead briefly reports on the activities in the WG (either just talking or AT MOST one slide). I think this was helpful to see what kind of proposals are likely to come up in the forum in the future. Also note that next Monday 2/25 (two weeks before the forum) is the last day to request readings/votes of errata items (by making the full text available) or to request any formal readings. After next Monday the agenda will be final. Thanks! Martin PS: Don't forget to register - the links are on the website. Monday, March 11, 2013 - Working Groups 1:00pm - 3:00pm Tools and FT WGs: Piggybacking / Vector Send/Recv 3:00pm - 3:30pm Break 3:30pm - 5:30pm P2P WG: Recvreduce Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - Working Groups 9:00am - 10:00pm Collectives WG: MPI_Alltoallwt 9:00am - 10:00pm Fortran WG: Init discussion 10:00am - 10:15am Break 10:15am - 12:00pm Tools WG: Debugging Interfaces 10:15am - 12:00pm I/O WG 12:00pm - 1:00pm Lunch break 1:00pm - 3:00pm Gen. Req. WG 1:00pm - 2:00pm Fault Tolerance and RMA WG 2:00pm - 3:00pm Fault Tolerance WG 3:00pm - 3:30pm Break 3:30pm - 5:30pm RMA WG: Iwin_create and Iwin_allocate 3:30pm - 5:30pm Fault Tolerance WG Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - Plenary 9:00am - 9:15am Working Group Updates (Working group leads) 9:15am - 11:00am Discussion on MPI 3.1/4.0 Voting Rules Document (Jeff S.) 11:00am - 11:15am Break 11:15am - 12:00pm Discussion/Update on MPI Architecture Review Board 12:00pm - 1:00pm Lunch break (continued ARB discussion) 1:00pm - 2:00pm Reading: MPI 3.0 RMA Errata (tickets 347, 348, 350, 355) 2:00pm - 2:15pm Reading: MPI_T 3.0 Errata (ticket 360) 2:15pm - 3:00pm Neighborhood Collectives (Rich) 3:00pm - 3:30pm Break 3:30pm - 5:00pm Hybrid WG Plenary (Pavan) 5:00pm - 6:00pm MPI_Recv_reduce plenary (Jeff H.) Thursday, March 14, 2013 - Plenary 9:00am - 10:00am Official votes on Errata and Voting Rules 10:00am - 11:00am Discussion on MPI_Sendv / MPI_Recvv (Fab) 11:00am - 11:15am Break 11:15am - 12:00pm Safe mechanisms to return strings (Fab) 12:00pm - 1:00pm Break ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

MPI Forum voting rules: v1.2
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 18 Feb '13

18 Feb '13

Based on the feedback from the list, Brian and I made a few minor changes to the document and present the Forum with a new version. The biggest changes are: - Addition of text to chapter 1 to make it clear that this is included for reference only, and is not part of this proposal - Addition of chapter 3: Suggestions for Proposers ("Suggestions for Voters" is now chapter 4) - Minor word smything All new text/changes since the December meeting are in red, so you can easily see the differences. Matin has placed discussion of this document on Wednesday morning of the agenda for the next meeting. I will place this new version of the document on the agenda web page. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum voting rules: new version
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 15 Feb '13

15 Feb '13

On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:16 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > My concern here is that if meetings are less frequent that every 6-8 weeks (the original MPI schedule), this approach drags the process out long enough to create a new failure mode - too much time elapses between votes. I don't think that you can ignore the amount of time between votes. Agreed. I should point out that this proposal is effectively a codification of the process that we have used for years (with some tweaks and clarifications, obviously). > I don't have a good solution to this, other than to permit an alternate, non-meeting mechanism for one of these events (e.g., perhaps the first vote could be done by email if more than 4 months will elapse between the reading and the second vote). That could be a viable idea. But I see this as a separate -- albeit related -- issue to this voting rules proposal. If someone makes a proposal to allow virtual ballots, then these voting rules can certainly have their language softened to allow ballots to occur in virtual scenarios (not just physical MPI Forum meetings). -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum voting rules: new version
by William Gropp 11 Feb '13

11 Feb '13

My concern here is that if meetings are less frequent that every 6-8 weeks (the original MPI schedule), this approach drags the process out long enough to create a new failure mode - too much time elapses between votes. I don't think that you can ignore the amount of time between votes. I don't have a good solution to this, other than to permit an alternate, non-meeting mechanism for one of these events (e.g., perhaps the first vote could be done by email if more than 4 months will elapse between the reading and the second vote). I would argue that if a line-by-line reading is helpful, the process failed in a previous step - the one where some representative and knowledgable group read the full proposal in context. I tend to call this the chapter committee, but it might be something else. In any event, line-by-line readings in plenary session are rarely helpful. 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 Feb 11, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: >> >> 2) The requirement for each reading and vote at a distinct physical meeting makes more sense when meetings are frequent. This requirement should be tied to the meeting frequency in some way. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. > > Are you saying that if we have distinct Forum meetings in 2 sequential weeks, it's still ok to have a reading the first meeting/week, and a vote at the second meeting/week? > > ...or is your concern that we'll drop down to having one meeting a year, and that would be problematic (i.e., no proposal could get done in less than 3 years)?

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum voting rules: new version
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 11 Feb '13

11 Feb '13

On Jan 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > Thanks for doing this. I have two comments: > > 1) There is no definition of what it means to "read" a proposal. That's correct. This proposal is about voting. It is not about other MPI Forum procedures. > It should be made clear that a "reading" is a summary/discussion; it is not a line-by-line discussion of the text in plenary session (those have never been productive). Actually, sometimes they have. This is one of those "sometimes they've been excruciatingly painful / not useful, but other times they've been genuinely useful" situations that I don't know how/were to draw the line. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try to do so in a procedures document, other than the suggestions in chapter 3. Could you suggest a bullet or two about this issue for the suggestions chapter? > 2) The requirement for each reading and vote at a distinct physical meeting makes more sense when meetings are frequent. This requirement should be tied to the meeting frequency in some way. I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that if we have distinct Forum meetings in 2 sequential weeks, it's still ok to have a reading the first meeting/week, and a vote at the second meeting/week? ...or is your concern that we'll drop down to having one meeting a year, and that would be problematic (i.e., no proposal could get done in less than 3 years)? I don't really want to try to address the whole virtual meeting topic in this document. This document is really just supposed to be about voting. Other procedures can be written up in other documents, and this document can be modified to match (e.g., if some definition for a virtual meeting is ever agreed upon). Today, we have "frequent enough" meetings, I think, such that this proposal could cover us for the next year or two. > I'm also concerned that the rules are attempting to use legislation to solve a deeper problem, having to do with the process by which we consider proposals. Such an approach rarely works unless the underlying problem is fixed. I do think that the suggestions for voters (chapter 3) is starting to get at this; it also needs a suggestions for proposers and for the committee. Good point. Brian and I can probably come up with suggestions for proposers that would compliment what is in the suggestions for voters. What suggestions would you suggest for "the committee"? Do you want write access to the bitbucket where the latex is located? -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0