June 2015 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016
by Rolf Rabenseifner 19 Jun '15

19 Jun '15

> ... There is bus 560 that runs > once per half hour from airport (once per hour during weekend) and the trip is > about 50 minutes; ... This public transport is nearly as perfect as in Chicago. Therefore I've also no objection. Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anh Vo" <Anh.Vo(a)microsoft.com> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 4:16:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 > I have no objection. My apartment is 3-4 blocks from the building where we’ll be > hosting (if we decide with Bellevue) J . > > > > --Anh > > > > > From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Schulz Martin > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:20 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 > > > > > > I personally considered Seattle/Bellvue as the same general location (in > particular, since both have hotels in walking distance), but we can certainly > discuss this. Do others have comments on this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov , http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > > > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > > > > > From: Anh Vo < Anh.Vo(a)microsoft.com > > Reply-To: Main mailing list < mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > Date: Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:47 PM > To: Main mailing list < mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > The last time we took the straw vote for the June meeting people were indicating > that Seattle was first choice and San Jose was second choice. Now we know that > Seattle is not feasible (due to the lack of meeting space), the alternative to > Seattle is Bellevue. Bellevue is quite a nice town, but the public > transportation isn’t that great compared to Seattle. There is bus 560 that runs > once per half hour from airport (once per hour during weekend) and the trip is > about 50 minutes; otherwise we would need to use taxi or rental car (Taxi is > about $55 to Bellevue downtown, Uber is about $35-$40), which takes about 30 > minutes from/to the airport. Bellevue also has fewer hotels (one Hyatt, one > Westin, one Courtyard Marriott, a few other nice local hotels). Should we get a > doodle poll to decide whether the majority would prefer San Jose vs Bellevue > given the above information? If we get this done early I can secure the meeting > rooms > > > > Thanks > > Anh > > > > > From: mpi-forum [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of > Schulz Martin > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 8:43 AM > To: Main mailing list > Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I just realized that this email I sent a week ago never made it out and got > stuck in our list server. So here it is again, with some updates. Please > respond to the doodle poll below soon. > > > > > > During the MPI forum meeting two weeks ago in Chicago, we had a discussion about > future locations for the MPI forum. The general consensus was to keep the 3 US > + EuroMPI meeting schedule and to also keep the length for each meeting (Mon > afternoon to Thu noon for the US meetings). As for locations and dates, here is > the current proposal: > > > > > > Chicago (Microsoft facility downtown): > > > 2/29-3/3 -OR– 3/7-3/10 (see below) > > > > > > Seattle (Microsoft facility downtown): > > > 6/6-6/9 > > > However, it turns out that the facility has no meeting room large enough for us > – the proposal is therefore to hold the meeting in Bellevue near Seattle at the > same dates. > > > > > > Edinburgh (hosted by EPCC, part of EuroMPI): > > > 9/21-9/23 (before EuroMPI) > > > > > > Dallas (IBM facility) > > > 12/5-12/8 > > > > > > All these dates and locations are tentative – please check all dates for obvious > conflicts. If there are any, please send me email and I’ll collect them. > > > > > > As for Chicago – either week works and matches previous schedules. I have setup > a doodle poll, so we can decide which one to use. The link is: > > > > > > http://doodle.com/qnhmueikzgf6veeb > > > > > > Please use a “NO” only if there is a serious conflict and use the “Maybe” option > if you have a personal preference. > > > > > > I would like to move quickly on this, though, to make sure our hosts have time > to lock in the facilities. So, please participate in the doodle poll and send > me potential conflicts by 6/20, this Friday. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov , http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > > > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov , http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > > > 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: Room 1.307)

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016
by Anh Vo 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

I have no objection. My apartment is 3-4 blocks from the building where we'll be hosting (if we decide with Bellevue) :). --Anh From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schulz Martin Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:20 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 I personally considered Seattle/Bellvue as the same general location (in particular, since both have hotels in walking distance), but we can certainly discuss this. Do others have comments on this? Thanks, Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA From: Anh Vo <Anh.Vo(a)microsoft.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:47 PM To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 Hi Martin, The last time we took the straw vote for the June meeting people were indicating that Seattle was first choice and San Jose was second choice. Now we know that Seattle is not feasible (due to the lack of meeting space), the alternative to Seattle is Bellevue. Bellevue is quite a nice town, but the public transportation isn't that great compared to Seattle. There is bus 560 that runs once per half hour from airport (once per hour during weekend) and the trip is about 50 minutes; otherwise we would need to use taxi or rental car (Taxi is about $55 to Bellevue downtown, Uber is about $35-$40), which takes about 30 minutes from/to the airport. Bellevue also has fewer hotels (one Hyatt, one Westin, one Courtyard Marriott, a few other nice local hotels). Should we get a doodle poll to decide whether the majority would prefer San Jose vs Bellevue given the above information? If we get this done early I can secure the meeting rooms Thanks Anh From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schulz Martin Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 8:43 AM To: Main mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 Hi all, I just realized that this email I sent a week ago never made it out and got stuck in our list server. So here it is again, with some updates. Please respond to the doodle poll below soon. During the MPI forum meeting two weeks ago in Chicago, we had a discussion about future locations for the MPI forum. The general consensus was to keep the 3 US + EuroMPI meeting schedule and to also keep the length for each meeting (Mon afternoon to Thu noon for the US meetings). As for locations and dates, here is the current proposal: Chicago (Microsoft facility downtown): 2/29-3/3 -OR- 3/7-3/10 (see below) Seattle (Microsoft facility downtown): 6/6-6/9 However, it turns out that the facility has no meeting room large enough for us - the proposal is therefore to hold the meeting in Bellevue near Seattle at the same dates. Edinburgh (hosted by EPCC, part of EuroMPI): 9/21-9/23 (before EuroMPI) Dallas (IBM facility) 12/5-12/8 All these dates and locations are tentative - please check all dates for obvious conflicts. If there are any, please send me email and I'll collect them. As for Chicago - either week works and matches previous schedules. I have setup a doodle poll, so we can decide which one to use. The link is: http://doodle.com/qnhmueikzgf6veeb Please use a "NO" only if there is a serious conflict and use the "Maybe" option if you have a personal preference. I would like to move quickly on this, though, to make sure our hosts have time to lock in the facilities. So, please participate in the doodle poll and send me potential conflicts by 6/20, this Friday. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016
by Schulz Martin 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

I personally considered Seattle/Bellvue as the same general location (in particular, since both have hotels in walking distance), but we can certainly discuss this. Do others have comments on this? Thanks, Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA From: Anh Vo <Anh.Vo(a)microsoft.com> Reply-To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:47 PM To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 Hi Martin, The last time we took the straw vote for the June meeting people were indicating that Seattle was first choice and San Jose was second choice. Now we know that Seattle is not feasible (due to the lack of meeting space), the alternative to Seattle is Bellevue. Bellevue is quite a nice town, but the public transportation isn¹t that great compared to Seattle. There is bus 560 that runs once per half hour from airport (once per hour during weekend) and the trip is about 50 minutes; otherwise we would need to use taxi or rental car (Taxi is about $55 to Bellevue downtown, Uber is about $35-$40), which takes about 30 minutes from/to the airport. Bellevue also has fewer hotels (one Hyatt, one Westin, one Courtyard Marriott, a few other nice local hotels). Should we get a doodle poll to decide whether the majority would prefer San Jose vs Bellevue given the above information? If we get this done early I can secure the meeting rooms Thanks Anh From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schulz Martin Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 8:43 AM To: Main mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 Hi all, I just realized that this email I sent a week ago never made it out and got stuck in our list server. So here it is again, with some updates. Please respond to the doodle poll below soon. During the MPI forum meeting two weeks ago in Chicago, we had a discussion about future locations for the MPI forum. The general consensus was to keep the 3 US + EuroMPI meeting schedule and to also keep the length for each meeting (Mon afternoon to Thu noon for the US meetings). As for locations and dates, here is the current proposal: Chicago (Microsoft facility downtown): 2/29-3/3 -OR 3/7-3/10 (see below) Seattle (Microsoft facility downtown): 6/6-6/9 However, it turns out that the facility has no meeting room large enough for us the proposal is therefore to hold the meeting in Bellevue near Seattle at the same dates. Edinburgh (hosted by EPCC, part of EuroMPI): 9/21-9/23 (before EuroMPI) Dallas (IBM facility) 12/5-12/8 All these dates and locations are tentative please check all dates for obvious conflicts. If there are any, please send me email and I¹ll collect them. As for Chicago either week works and matches previous schedules. I have setup a doodle poll, so we can decide which one to use. The link is: http://doodle.com/qnhmueikzgf6veeb <http://doodle.com/qnhmueikzgf6veeb> Please use a ³NO² only if there is a serious conflict and use the ³Maybe² option if you have a personal preference. I would like to move quickly on this, though, to make sure our hosts have time to lock in the facilities. So, please participate in the doodle poll and send me potential conflicts by 6/20, this Friday. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016
by Anh Vo 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

Hi Martin, The last time we took the straw vote for the June meeting people were indicating that Seattle was first choice and San Jose was second choice. Now we know that Seattle is not feasible (due to the lack of meeting space), the alternative to Seattle is Bellevue. Bellevue is quite a nice town, but the public transportation isn't that great compared to Seattle. There is bus 560 that runs once per half hour from airport (once per hour during weekend) and the trip is about 50 minutes; otherwise we would need to use taxi or rental car (Taxi is about $55 to Bellevue downtown, Uber is about $35-$40), which takes about 30 minutes from/to the airport. Bellevue also has fewer hotels (one Hyatt, one Westin, one Courtyard Marriott, a few other nice local hotels). Should we get a doodle poll to decide whether the majority would prefer San Jose vs Bellevue given the above information? If we get this done early I can secure the meeting rooms Thanks Anh From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schulz Martin Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 8:43 AM To: Main mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016 Hi all, I just realized that this email I sent a week ago never made it out and got stuck in our list server. So here it is again, with some updates. Please respond to the doodle poll below soon. During the MPI forum meeting two weeks ago in Chicago, we had a discussion about future locations for the MPI forum. The general consensus was to keep the 3 US + EuroMPI meeting schedule and to also keep the length for each meeting (Mon afternoon to Thu noon for the US meetings). As for locations and dates, here is the current proposal: Chicago (Microsoft facility downtown): 2/29-3/3 -OR- 3/7-3/10 (see below) Seattle (Microsoft facility downtown): 6/6-6/9 However, it turns out that the facility has no meeting room large enough for us - the proposal is therefore to hold the meeting in Bellevue near Seattle at the same dates. Edinburgh (hosted by EPCC, part of EuroMPI): 9/21-9/23 (before EuroMPI) Dallas (IBM facility) 12/5-12/8 All these dates and locations are tentative - please check all dates for obvious conflicts. If there are any, please send me email and I'll collect them. As for Chicago - either week works and matches previous schedules. I have setup a doodle poll, so we can decide which one to use. The link is: http://doodle.com/qnhmueikzgf6veeb Please use a "NO" only if there is a serious conflict and use the "Maybe" option if you have a personal preference. I would like to move quickly on this, though, to make sure our hosts have time to lock in the facilities. So, please participate in the doodle poll and send me potential conflicts by 6/20, this Friday. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

MPI Forum Meeting Schedule for 2016
by Schulz Martin 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Hi all, I just realized that this email I sent a week ago never made it out and got stuck in our list server. So here it is again, with some updates. Please respond to the doodle poll below soon. During the MPI forum meeting two weeks ago in Chicago, we had a discussion about future locations for the MPI forum. The general consensus was to keep the 3 US + EuroMPI meeting schedule and to also keep the length for each meeting (Mon afternoon to Thu noon for the US meetings). As for locations and dates, here is the current proposal: Chicago (Microsoft facility downtown): 2/29-3/3 -OR 3/7-3/10 (see below) Seattle (Microsoft facility downtown): 6/6-6/9 However, it turns out that the facility has no meeting room large enough for us the proposal is therefore to hold the meeting in Bellevue near Seattle at the same dates. Edinburgh (hosted by EPCC, part of EuroMPI): 9/21-9/23 (before EuroMPI) Dallas (IBM facility) 12/5-12/8 All these dates and locations are tentative please check all dates for obvious conflicts. If there are any, please send me email and I¹ll collect them. As for Chicago either week works and matches previous schedules. I have setup a doodle poll, so we can decide which one to use. The link is: http://doodle.com/qnhmueikzgf6veeb Please use a ³NO² only if there is a serious conflict and use the ³Maybe² option if you have a personal preference. I would like to move quickly on this, though, to make sure our hosts have time to lock in the facilities. So, please participate in the doodle poll and send me potential conflicts by 6/20, this Friday. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Pictures & who-is-who from the MPI Forum meetings for MPI-2.0, 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1
by Jesper Larsson Träff 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

dear Rolf, all, nice for the archives. For the MPI 3.0 meeting in Vienna, [9] and [8] are swapped, me (Jesper Larsson Trï¿½ff) and George Bosilca best, Jesper On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 06:11:18PM +0200, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > Dear all, > > at > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2015/06/slides/MPI-3.1_final-vote_M… > you'll find some pictures from the MPI Forum meetings for MPI-2.0, > 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1, together with a who-is-who on slides 3 and 8. > > I hope that you enjoy it. > > I did The who-is-who with the help from Jeff Squyres and Atsushi Hori, > but is is still incomplete (on slide 8), and > I hope that the names to all faces are correct. > > Martin plans to put the slide-1 picture and a link to the file > directly on the meetings' home page http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/ > (not yet done). > > If I should remove your face and names from one of these pictures, > please send a short note directly to me and Jeff Squyres. > > Best regards > Rolf > > PS: Jeff, thank you for storing it on the June-2015-meeting-slides web-page. > > -- > 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: Room 1.307) > _______________________________________________ > 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] Pictures & who-is-who from the MPI Forum meetings for MPI-2.0, 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1
by Thakur, Rajeev 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Very nice, particularly the old pictures from MPI-2. Rajeev > On Jun 12, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: > > Dear all, > > at > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2015/06/slides/MPI-3.1_final-vote_M… > you'll find some pictures from the MPI Forum meetings for MPI-2.0, > 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1, together with a who-is-who on slides 3 and 8. > > I hope that you enjoy it. > > I did The who-is-who with the help from Jeff Squyres and Atsushi Hori, > but is is still incomplete (on slide 8), and > I hope that the names to all faces are correct. > > Martin plans to put the slide-1 picture and a link to the file > directly on the meetings' home page http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/ > (not yet done). > > If I should remove your face and names from one of these pictures, > please send a short note directly to me and Jeff Squyres. > > Best regards > Rolf > > PS: Jeff, thank you for storing it on the June-2015-meeting-slides web-page. > > -- > 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: Room 1.307) > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Pictures & who-is-who from the MPI Forum meetings for MPI-2.0, 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1
by Rolf Rabenseifner 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear all, at http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2015/06/slides/MPI-3.1_final-vote_M… you'll find some pictures from the MPI Forum meetings for MPI-2.0, 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1, together with a who-is-who on slides 3 and 8. I hope that you enjoy it. I did The who-is-who with the help from Jeff Squyres and Atsushi Hori, but is is still incomplete (on slide 8), and I hope that the names to all faces are correct. Martin plans to put the slide-1 picture and a link to the file directly on the meetings' home page http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/ (not yet done). If I should remove your face and names from one of these pictures, please send a short note directly to me and Jeff Squyres. Best regards Rolf PS: Jeff, thank you for storing it on the June-2015-meeting-slides web-page. -- 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: Room 1.307)

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] cancel in standard
by Rusty Lusk 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

Can you get me the email addresses I asked for this afternoon? Thanks, Rusty On Sunday,Jun 7, 2015, at 7:46 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > What standard versions we release depends on what tickets/changes we have that need to be pushed out. Not the other way around. > > -- Pavan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> MPI 3.2 just to get rid of Cancel is worth it :-) >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Right now, there is no concept of "MPI-3.2" -- there's only MPI-3.1 errata and MPI-4.0. >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I've changed the latter two to "MPI-next". >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pavan Balaji >>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/15, 11:43 AM, "Bland, Wesley" <wesley.bland(a)intel.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The version information should probably be updated for the tickets that you are targeting for MPI 3.2 and MPI 4.0. Right now, they’re all MPI 3.1 errata. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On June 5, 2015 at 11:29:58 AM, Balaji, Pavan (balaji(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> FYI, here are the three tickets mentioned below. Feedback is appreciated. I'll pass this through the pt2pt working group, but I'm looking for general feedback at this point. >>>>> >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/478 >>>>> >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/479 >>>>> >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/480 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Pavan >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Pavan Balaji >>>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/15, 7:08 AM, "mpi-forum on behalf of Balaji, Pavan" <mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org on behalf of balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the main reasons cancel send was introduced was for symmetry, since there were cancel receives too. But that argument has gone out the window with NBC, RMA and I/O requests which are all not cancelable. >>>>>> >>>>>> For everyone's information, we are working on three tickets. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. An MPI-3.1 errata ticket to clarify the wording in the MPI standard as to what cancel send must do. This will also remove some incorrect wording in the standard with respect to the behavior of wait/test after a failed cancelation. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. An MPI-3.2 ticket to deprecate send cancel citing all the complexities in implementing it efficiently. More importantly the cost of supporting send cancel on non-cancel operations. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. An MPI-4.0 ticket to remove send cancel. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Pavan >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Supalov, Alexander <alexander.supalov(a)intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>> br/>>> Just a note: MPI__Cancel would be next to MPI_ANY SOURCE to go had one introduced assertions. :) >>>>>>> br/>>> -----Original Message----- < >>>>>>> From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:24 PM >>>>>>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] cancel in standard >>>>>>> br/>>> But the user did care about it, and theey decided to cancel it. It may not be one message, but one per iteration. And the semantics is clear (even if the standard's language isn't). >>>>>>> br/>>> Bill < >>>>>>> br/>>>> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> br/>>>> What's the harm in letting a meessage that the user clearly does not br/>>>> care about sitt in a queue/buffer forever? I consider this an br/>>>> aacceptable consequence of a really stupid feature. >>>>>>>> br/>>>> Jeff < >>>>>>>> br/>>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:550 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Pavan is correct about the intent, and we could make this more precise. The basic requirement is that a message is *guaranteed* to either be canceled (on send) or received. Sitting in a queue or buffer somewhere does not count. >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>> Bill < >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2015, att 7:19 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>> [[Cc'ed the Forum] >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> This wording haas been debated many times at the Forum. Specifically, the "completes normally" and "received at the destination" pieces are ambiguous. For instance, if the data is copied into a bounce buffer, the send would complete normally, but that does not mean that there is a receive posted for that data. In this case, it would be the user's responsibility to post a corresponding receive. If the MPI implementation does not have a bounce buffer (e.g., for large messages), "received at the destination" could mean into an unexpected buffer, not necessarily a user buffer. >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> The consensus ffrom MPI-1 veterans (Marc, Bill, etc.) during the last discussion was that if the application does not post a receive, then it is guaranteed that the send should be cancelable. At least that was the intent. The wording, of course, is too vague for such a definition. >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> You could try tto weaken that interpretation and say that if the MPI implementation is not able to cancel a send operation, then the user is responsible for posting a matching receive to receive that data. Irrespective of which interpretation we go with, I think it is important to clarify it in the standard. Perhaps an MPI-3.1 errata or MPI-3.2 change instead of waiting for MPI-4? Do you want to create a ticket? >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> -- Pavan < >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> On 6/3/15, 7:05 PM, ""Sur, Sayantan" <sayantan.sur(a)intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> What liines in the standard support the interpretation that "a br/>>>t;>>>> message that will not be successfully matched, must be cancelable"? >>>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> This iss what I found, and it doesn't support the stricter interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> ""If a >>>>>>>>>>> send is marked for cancellation, then it must be the case that br/>>>>>>> either the send ccompletes normally, in which case the message sent br/>>>>&ggt;>> was received at the destination process, or that the send is br/>>>>>>> successfully cancelled, in which case noo part of the message was br/>>>>>>> received at thhe destination. Then, any matching receive has to be br/>>>>;>>> satisfied by another send." >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>>>> br/>>>> br/>>>> br/>>>> -- < >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> br/>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>>> Intel GmbH >>>>>>> Dornacher Strasse 1 >>>>>>> 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland >>>>>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen >>>>>>> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk >>>>>>> Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 >>>>>>> Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 >>>>>>> Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 >>>>>>> br/>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] cancel in standard
by Balaji, Pavan 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

What standard versions we release depends on what tickets/changes we have that need to be pushed out. Not the other way around. -- Pavan Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > MPI 3.2 just to get rid of Cancel is worth it :-) > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 5, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Right now, there is no concept of "MPI-3.2" -- there's only MPI-3.1 errata and MPI-4.0. >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I've changed the latter two to "MPI-next". >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6/5/15, 11:43 AM, "Bland, Wesley" <wesley.bland(a)intel.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The version information should probably be updated for the tickets that you are targeting for MPI 3.2 and MPI 4.0. Right now, they’re all MPI 3.1 errata. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On June 5, 2015 at 11:29:58 AM, Balaji, Pavan (balaji(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: >>>> >>>> FYI, here are the three tickets mentioned below. Feedback is appreciated. I'll pass this through the pt2pt working group, but I'm looking for general feedback at this point. >>>> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/478 >>>> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/479 >>>> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/480 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Pavan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pavan Balaji >>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/15, 7:08 AM, "mpi-forum on behalf of Balaji, Pavan" <mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org on behalf of balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the main reasons cancel send was introduced was for symmetry, since there were cancel receives too. But that argument has gone out the window with NBC, RMA and I/O requests which are all not cancelable. >>>>> >>>>> For everyone's information, we are working on three tickets. >>>>> >>>>> 1. An MPI-3.1 errata ticket to clarify the wording in the MPI standard as to what cancel send must do. This will also remove some incorrect wording in the standard with respect to the behavior of wait/test after a failed cancelation. >>>>> >>>>> 2. An MPI-3.2 ticket to deprecate send cancel citing all the complexities in implementing it efficiently. More importantly the cost of supporting send cancel on non-cancel operations. >>>>> >>>>> 3. An MPI-4.0 ticket to remove send cancel. >>>>> >>>>> -- Pavan >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Supalov, Alexander <alexander.supalov(a)intel.com> wrote: >>>>>> br/>>> Just a note: MPI__Cancel would be next to MPI_ANY SOURCE to go had one introduced assertions. :) >>>>>> br/>>> -----Original Message----- < >>>>>> From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:24 PM >>>>>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] cancel in standard >>>>>> br/>>> But the user did care about it, and theey decided to cancel it. It may not be one message, but one per iteration. And the semantics is clear (even if the standard's language isn't). >>>>>> br/>>> Bill < >>>>>> br/>>>> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> br/>>>> What's the harm in letting a meessage that the user clearly does not br/>>>> care about sitt in a queue/buffer forever? I consider this an br/>>>> aacceptable consequence of a really stupid feature. >>>>>>> br/>>>> Jeff < >>>>>>> br/>>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:550 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> Pavan is correct about the intent, and we could make this more precise. The basic requirement is that a message is *guaranteed* to either be canceled (on send) or received. Sitting in a queue or buffer somewhere does not count. >>>>>>>> br/>>>>> Bill < >>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2015, att 7:19 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>> [[Cc'ed the Forum] >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> This wording haas been debated many times at the Forum. Specifically, the "completes normally" and "received at the destination" pieces are ambiguous. For instance, if the data is copied into a bounce buffer, the send would complete normally, but that does not mean that there is a receive posted for that data. In this case, it would be the user's responsibility to post a corresponding receive. If the MPI implementation does not have a bounce buffer (e.g., for large messages), "received at the destination" could mean into an unexpected buffer, not necessarily a user buffer. >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> The consensus ffrom MPI-1 veterans (Marc, Bill, etc.) during the last discussion was that if the application does not post a receive, then it is guaranteed that the send should be cancelable. At least that was the intent. The wording, of course, is too vague for such a definition. >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> You could try tto weaken that interpretation and say that if the MPI implementation is not able to cancel a send operation, then the user is responsible for posting a matching receive to receive that data. Irrespective of which interpretation we go with, I think it is important to clarify it in the standard. Perhaps an MPI-3.1 errata or MPI-3.2 change instead of waiting for MPI-4? Do you want to create a ticket? >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> -- Pavan < >>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> On 6/3/15, 7:05 PM, ""Sur, Sayantan" <sayantan.sur(a)intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> What liines in the standard support the interpretation that "a br/>>>t;>>>> message that will not be successfully matched, must be cancelable"? >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> This iss what I found, and it doesn't support the stricter interpretation. >>>>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> br/>>>>>>> ""If a >>>>>>>>>> send is marked for cancellation, then it must be the case that br/>>>>>>> either the send ccompletes normally, in which case the message sent br/>>>>&ggt;>> was received at the destination process, or that the send is br/>>>>>>> successfully cancelled, in which case noo part of the message was br/>>>>>>> received at thhe destination. Then, any matching receive has to be br/>>>>;>>> satisfied by another send." >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>>>> br/>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>>> br/>>>> br/>>>> br/>>>> -- < >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> br/>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>> Intel GmbH >>>>>> Dornacher Strasse 1 >>>>>> 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland >>>>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen >>>>>> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk >>>>>> Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 >>>>>> Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 >>>>>> Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 >>>>>> br/>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 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 > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0