November 2014 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?
by Schulz Martin 23 Nov '14

23 Nov '14

Hi Jeff, Sure, no problem - I marked the second slot as a joint WG session. As for the WG itself, I have no problems with the plan unless Fab objects. I’ll wait to make any changes there until we hear from him. Thanks, Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA On 11/22/14, 6:02 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Martin: > >Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday >to be a joint meeting with the greq WG? Again, this assumes Fab will >not veto this plan... > >One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking >collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion. The >other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not >time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on >Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is >driving since he has expressed interest. > >Thanks! > >Jeff > >On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >> Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going >> to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). >> >> Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab >> consents to it? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jeff >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm >>>very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests >>>proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. >>> >>> -- Pavan >>> >>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps >>>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or >>>> hybrid WG. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any comments on this? >>>> >>>> The relevant ticket is >>>>https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. >>>> >>>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of >>>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, >>>> including large-count nonblocking collectives. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Hammond >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji ✉️ >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > > >-- >Jeff Hammond >jeff.science(a)gmail.com >http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >_______________________________________________ >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] which WG for generalized requests?
by Jeff Hammond 23 Nov '14

23 Nov '14

I merely meant that the content of the proposal has clearly been iterated upon by a number of people and reached a steady state, even if that state has issues. The purpose of my comment was to avoid making the original greq proposal more complicated by adding persistence. I look forward to new tickets on persistent greqs. As for your technical comments on the proposal, I will add them to the ticket for posterity. Jeff On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:01 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: > I question the stability claim regarding this new ticket. > > I was part of the original greq working group with Rob and Darius. > Unfortunately few notes remains from our meeting. If I recall correctly we > dropped the ball on this proposal for two reasons. > 1) The potential use of MPI functions in the greq library. If the greq > library uses MPI for its own purposes, it has the potential to > expect/require some form of MPI progress (as it will have to call MPI_Test > or MPI_Wait) deep inside the greq progress function, function which is > called from the MPI progress. This lead to a recursive stack in the MPI > progress that was deemed undesirable and potentially error-prone. > 2) The major assumption of the proposal, threads being undesirable, seemed > to be in contradiction with the hardware evolution (and with the fact that > some libraries had async progress). > > Moreover, the proposal was extremely unclear how the greq progress function > interacts with the default progress engine of any MPI library other than > MPICH, and about how often the progress functions should be called, > especially when testing or waiting for multiple requests. Without such > guarantees it is almost impossible to write portable and efficient libraries > based on greq. > > George. > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> The greq ticket is quite stable and I'd like to move forward with it >> without adding baggage. >> >> Let's figure out more details of persistence before linear-combining it >> with other features. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Nov 22, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)auburn.edu> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi, I think we should put generalized requests in the Persistent group >> > :-) >> > Seriously, I think we need persistent generalized requests. Perhaps we >> > can compare notes offline. >> > >> > I really don't which group it goes in, but if we are revisiting GREQs we >> > should consider persistent ones. >> > >> > Tony >> > >> > >> > >> > Anthony Skjellum, PhD >> > Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering >> > COLSA Professor of Cybersecurity and Information Assurance >> > Director of the Auburn Cyber Research Center and Lead Cyber Scientist >> > for Auburn >> > Samuel Ginn College of Engineering >> > Auburn University >> > skjellum(a)auburn.edu or skjellum(a)gmail.com >> > cell: +1-205-807-4968 ; office: +1-334-844-6360 >> > >> > >> > CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and >> > may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the >> > sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, >> > use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: mpi-forum [mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of >> > Jeff Hammond [jeff.science(a)gmail.com] >> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 6:02 PM >> > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests? >> > >> > Martin: >> > >> > Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday >> > to be a joint meeting with the greq WG? Again, this assumes Fab will >> > not veto this plan... >> > >> > One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking >> > collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion. The >> > other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not >> > time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on >> > Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is >> > driving since he has expressed interest. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going >> >> to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). >> >> >> >> Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab >> >> consents to it? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm >> >>> very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, >> >>> whichever WG it ends up being in. >> >>> >> >>> -- Pavan >> >>> >> >>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps >> >>>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or >> >>>> hybrid WG. >> >>>> >> >>>> Does anyone have any comments on this? >> >>>> >> >>>> The relevant ticket is >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. >> >>>> >> >>>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number >> >>>> of >> >>>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, >> >>>> including large-count nonblocking collectives. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Jeff >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Jeff Hammond >> >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >> >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Pavan Balaji ✉️ >> >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> mpi-forum mailing list >> >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jeff Hammond >> >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jeff Hammond >> > jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?
by George Bosilca 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

I question the stability claim regarding this new ticket. I was part of the original greq working group with Rob and Darius. Unfortunately few notes remains from our meeting. If I recall correctly we dropped the ball on this proposal for two reasons. 1) The potential use of MPI functions in the greq library. If the greq library uses MPI for its own purposes, it has the potential to expect/require some form of MPI progress (as it will have to call MPI_Test or MPI_Wait) deep inside the greq progress function, function which is called from the MPI progress. This lead to a recursive stack in the MPI progress that was deemed undesirable and potentially error-prone. 2) The major assumption of the proposal, threads being undesirable, seemed to be in contradiction with the hardware evolution (and with the fact that some libraries had async progress). Moreover, the proposal was extremely unclear how the greq progress function interacts with the default progress engine of any MPI library other than MPICH, and about how often the progress functions should be called, especially when testing or waiting for multiple requests. Without such guarantees it is almost impossible to write portable and efficient libraries based on greq. George. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The greq ticket is quite stable and I'd like to move forward with it > without adding baggage. > > Let's figure out more details of persistence before linear-combining it > with other features. > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 22, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)auburn.edu> > wrote: > > > > Hi, I think we should put generalized requests in the Persistent group > :-) > > Seriously, I think we need persistent generalized requests. Perhaps we > can compare notes offline. > > > > I really don't which group it goes in, but if we are revisiting GREQs we > should consider persistent ones. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > Anthony Skjellum, PhD > > Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering > > COLSA Professor of Cybersecurity and Information Assurance > > Director of the Auburn Cyber Research Center and Lead Cyber Scientist > for Auburn > > Samuel Ginn College of Engineering > > Auburn University > > skjellum(a)auburn.edu or skjellum(a)gmail.com > > cell: +1-205-807-4968 ; office: +1-334-844-6360 > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and > > may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the > > sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, > > use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: mpi-forum [mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of > Jeff Hammond [jeff.science(a)gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 6:02 PM > > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests? > > > > Martin: > > > > Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday > > to be a joint meeting with the greq WG? Again, this assumes Fab will > > not veto this plan... > > > > One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking > > collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion. The > > other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not > > time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on > > Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is > > driving since he has expressed interest. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jeff > > > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going > >> to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). > >> > >> Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab > >> consents to it? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > >>> > >>> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm > very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests > proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. > >>> > >>> -- Pavan > >>> > >>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps > >>>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or > >>>> hybrid WG. > >>>> > >>>> Does anyone have any comments on this? > >>>> > >>>> The relevant ticket is > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. > >>>> > >>>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of > >>>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, > >>>> including large-count nonblocking collectives. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jeff > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeff Hammond > >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Pavan Balaji ✉️ > >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Hammond > >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Hammond > > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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] which WG for generalized requests?
by Jeff Hammond 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

The greq ticket is quite stable and I'd like to move forward with it without adding baggage. Let's figure out more details of persistence before linear-combining it with other features. Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 22, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)auburn.edu> wrote: > > Hi, I think we should put generalized requests in the Persistent group :-) > Seriously, I think we need persistent generalized requests. Perhaps we can compare notes offline. > > I really don't which group it goes in, but if we are revisiting GREQs we should consider persistent ones. > > Tony > > > > Anthony Skjellum, PhD > Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering > COLSA Professor of Cybersecurity and Information Assurance > Director of the Auburn Cyber Research Center and Lead Cyber Scientist for Auburn > Samuel Ginn College of Engineering > Auburn University > skjellum(a)auburn.edu or skjellum(a)gmail.com > cell: +1-205-807-4968 ; office: +1-334-844-6360 > > > CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and > may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the > sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, > use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. > > ________________________________________ > From: mpi-forum [mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jeff Hammond [jeff.science(a)gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 6:02 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests? > > Martin: > > Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday > to be a joint meeting with the greq WG? Again, this assumes Fab will > not veto this plan... > > One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking > collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion. The > other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not > time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on > Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is > driving since he has expressed interest. > > Thanks! > > Jeff > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going >> to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). >> >> Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab >> consents to it? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jeff >> >>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. >>> >>> -- Pavan >>> >>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps >>>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or >>>> hybrid WG. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any comments on this? >>>> >>>> The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. >>>> >>>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of >>>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, >>>> including large-count nonblocking collectives. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Hammond >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji ✉️ >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > 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] which WG for generalized requests?
by Anthony Skjellum 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

Hi, I think we should put generalized requests in the Persistent group :-) Seriously, I think we need persistent generalized requests. Perhaps we can compare notes offline. I really don't which group it goes in, but if we are revisiting GREQs we should consider persistent ones. Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering COLSA Professor of Cybersecurity and Information Assurance Director of the Auburn Cyber Research Center and Lead Cyber Scientist for Auburn Samuel Ginn College of Engineering Auburn University skjellum(a)auburn.edu or skjellum(a)gmail.com cell: +1-205-807-4968 ; office: +1-334-844-6360 CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. ________________________________________ From: mpi-forum [mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jeff Hammond [jeff.science(a)gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 6:02 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests? Martin: Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday to be a joint meeting with the greq WG? Again, this assumes Fab will not veto this plan... One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion. The other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is driving since he has expressed interest. Thanks! Jeff On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going > to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). > > Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab > consents to it? > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >> >> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. >> >> -- Pavan >> >>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps >>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or >>> hybrid WG. >>> >>> Does anyone have any comments on this? >>> >>> The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. >>> >>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of >>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, >>> including large-count nonblocking collectives. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Hammond >>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji ✉️ >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ 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] which WG for generalized requests?
by Jeff Hammond 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

Martin: Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday to be a joint meeting with the greq WG? Again, this assumes Fab will not veto this plan... One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion. The other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is driving since he has expressed interest. Thanks! Jeff On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going > to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). > > Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab > consents to it? > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >> >> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. >> >> -- Pavan >> >>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps >>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or >>> hybrid WG. >>> >>> Does anyone have any comments on this? >>> >>> The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. >>> >>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of >>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, >>> including large-count nonblocking collectives. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Hammond >>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji ✉️ >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?
by Jeff Hammond 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

Ok. Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately). Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab consents to it? Thanks, Jeff On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. > > -- Pavan > >> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps >> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or >> hybrid WG. >> >> Does anyone have any comments on this? >> >> The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. >> >> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of >> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, >> including large-count nonblocking collectives. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jeff >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > -- > Pavan Balaji ✉️ > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?
by Balaji, Pavan 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG. I'm very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in. -- Pavan > On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps > it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or > hybrid WG. > > Does anyone have any comments on this? > > The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. > > My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of > problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, > including large-count nonblocking collectives. > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Pavan Balaji ✉️ http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

which WG for generalized requests?
by Jeff Hammond 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or hybrid WG. Does anyone have any comments on this? The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457. My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests, including large-count nonblocking collectives. Thanks, Jeff -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Don't forget to register
by Schulz Martin 21 Nov '14

21 Nov '14

Hi all, Please also take this as the last reminder that all readings, votes and errata proposals need to be announced by Monday 2pm (Pacific time). Please send them to the list and I will update the web page accordingly. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA On 11/21/14, 12:18 PM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >The Forum meeting is in just about 2 weeks -- don't forget to register! > > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/Dec_2014_logistics.php > >-- >Jeff Squyres >jsquyres(a)cisco.com >For corporate legal information go to: >http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >_______________________________________________ >mpi-forum mailing list >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0