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

slides
by Jeff Squyres 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

Please don't forget to send me your slides after you present (e.g., there were multiple slide decks presented in the hybrid wg yesterday). Thanks! -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Pavan Balaji 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

If this is being moved to MPI-3, we should consider modifying the ticket to include functions we left behind for backward compatibility. For example: int MPI_Comm_spawn(const char*, /*const*/char*[], int, MPI_Info, int, MPI_Comm, MPI_Comm*, int []); int MPI_Comm_spawn_multiple(int, /*const*/char*[], /*const*/char**[], const int [],/*const*/MPI_Info [], int, MPI_Comm, MPI_Comm*, int []); -- Pavan On 06/02/2009 09:36 AM, Richard Treumann wrote: > Hi Bronis > > To the best of my knowledge, none of the signatories involved in asking > that Ticket 140 not become part of MPI 2.2 consider it inappropriate for > consideration in MPI 3.0 > > This proposal generated real interest among Forum members and I see no > reason for it to be withdrawn entirely. > > Thank you Erez for agreeing to defer this to 3.0. It is a relief to a > number of MPI implementors that if (or when) this becomes part of the > MPI standard, we will have the lead time to do it properly and test it > rigorously. > > Dick Treumann > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org wrote on 06/01/2009 06:28:29 PM: > > > [image removed] > > > > Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > > > Bronis R. de Supinski > > > > to: > > > > Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > > 06/01/2009 06:32 PM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > > Cc: > > > > "MPI 2.2" > > > > Please respond to "Bronis R. de Supinski", Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > > > > Erez: > > > > Please do not simply withdraw it. There are a substantial > > portion of us who you convinced this was a good idea and > > what I saw in the feedback was that some found that it > > was outside the scope of 2.2. I think some of those people > > still feel it is a good idea even if that is the case. > > I hope you will press for 3.0. > > > > Bronis > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Erez Haba wrote: > > > > > With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I don't see any > > point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this > > ticket in the next mpi forum meeting. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > .Erez > > > > > > From: mpi-22-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-22- > > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of William Gropp > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM > > > To: MPI 2.2 > > > Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > > > > > This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a > > chance to take a second look at the issues. I'll note that the > > 17-10 (counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a > > majority vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling > > argument for each feature. > > > > > > The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the > > second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional > > requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we > > didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), > > but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change would > > require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the > > change is minor. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this email. I will > > just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with > > the following results. > > > > > > 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: > > > YES: > > > > > > 17 > > > > > > NO: > > > > > > 4 > > > > > > ABSTAIN: > > > > > > 6 > > > > > > MISSED: > > > > > > 0 > > > > > > Result: > > > > > > Ballot passed > > > > > > > > > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php > > > > > > since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few > > minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus > > created ticket #140. > > > > > > I believe that all the points you mention below have been > > discussed in the forum meeting(s). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > .Erez > > > > > > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:mpi-forum- > > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > [mailto:[email protected] > > ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM > > > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > Cc: mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> > > > Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > > > > > > > > All - > > > > > > The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI > > implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that > > proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number > > of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. > > > > > > In particular, the proposal: > > > > > > - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the > > support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus > > has not been reached. > > > - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change > > and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. > > > - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to > > solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. > > > - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for > > implementation or application, but may constrain future > > implementation opportunities. > > > > > > Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 > > to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > - Cisco: Jeff Squires > > > - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood > > > - Sandia: Brian Barrett > > > - IBM: Richard Treumann > > > - QLogic: Avneesh Pant > > > - UTenn: George Bosilca > > > - HP: David George Solt > > > - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel > > > - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray > > > - ORNL: Richard Graham > > > - Sun: Terry Dontje > > > - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff > > > > > > > > > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > <ATT00001.txt> > > > > > > William Gropp > > > Deputy Director for Research > > > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies > > > Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science > > > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Richard Treumann 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

Hi Bronis To the best of my knowledge, none of the signatories involved in asking that Ticket 140 not become part of MPI 2.2 consider it inappropriate for consideration in MPI 3.0 This proposal generated real interest among Forum members and I see no reason for it to be withdrawn entirely. Thank you Erez for agreeing to defer this to 3.0. It is a relief to a number of MPI implementors that if (or when) this becomes part of the MPI standard, we will have the lead time to do it properly and test it rigorously. Dick Treumann Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org wrote on 06/01/2009 06:28:29 PM: > [image removed] > > Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > Bronis R. de Supinski > > to: > > Main MPI Forum mailing list > > 06/01/2009 06:32 PM > > Sent by: > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > Cc: > > "MPI 2.2" > > Please respond to "Bronis R. de Supinski", Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > Erez: > > Please do not simply withdraw it. There are a substantial > portion of us who you convinced this was a good idea and > what I saw in the feedback was that some found that it > was outside the scope of 2.2. I think some of those people > still feel it is a good idea even if that is the case. > I hope you will press for 3.0. > > Bronis > > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Erez Haba wrote: > > > With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I don't see any > point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this > ticket in the next mpi forum meeting. > > > > Thanks, > > .Erez > > > > From: mpi-22-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-22- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of William Gropp > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM > > To: MPI 2.2 > > Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > > > This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a > chance to take a second look at the issues. I'll note that the > 17-10 (counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a > majority vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling > argument for each feature. > > > > The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the > second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional > requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we > didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), > but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change would > require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the > change is minor. > > > > Bill > > > > On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this email. I will > just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with > the following results. > > > > 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: > > YES: > > > > 17 > > > > NO: > > > > 4 > > > > ABSTAIN: > > > > 6 > > > > MISSED: > > > > 0 > > > > Result: > > > > Ballot passed > > > > > > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php > > > > since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few > minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus > created ticket #140. > > > > I believe that all the points you mention below have been > discussed in the forum meeting(s). > > > > Thanks, > > .Erez > > > > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM > > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > > Cc: mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > > > > > All - > > > > The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI > implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that > proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number > of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. > > > > In particular, the proposal: > > > > - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the > support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus > has not been reached. > > - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change > and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. > > - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to > solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. > > - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for > implementation or application, but may constrain future > implementation opportunities. > > > > Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 > to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. > > > > Thank you, > > > > - Cisco: Jeff Squires > > - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood > > - Sandia: Brian Barrett > > - IBM: Richard Treumann > > - QLogic: Avneesh Pant > > - UTenn: George Bosilca > > - HP: David George Solt > > - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel > > - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray > > - ORNL: Richard Graham > > - Sun: Terry Dontje > > - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff > > > > > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > <ATT00001.txt> > > > > William Gropp > > Deputy Director for Research > > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies > > Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science > > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Bronis R. de Supinski 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

Erez: Please do not simply withdraw it. There are a substantial portion of us who you convinced this was a good idea and what I saw in the feedback was that some found that it was outside the scope of 2.2. I think some of those people still feel it is a good idea even if that is the case. I hope you will press for 3.0. Bronis On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Erez Haba wrote: > With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I don't see any point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this ticket in the next mpi forum meeting. > > Thanks, > .Erez > > From: mpi-22-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM > To: MPI 2.2 > Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a chance to take a second look at the issues. I'll note that the 17-10 (counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a majority vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling argument for each feature. > > The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change would require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the change is minor. > > Bill > > On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote: > > > Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this email. I will just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with the following results. > > 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: > YES: > > 17 > > NO: > > 4 > > ABSTAIN: > > 6 > > MISSED: > > 0 > > Result: > > Ballot passed > > > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php > > since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus created ticket #140. > > I believe that all the points you mention below have been discussed in the forum meeting(s). > > Thanks, > .Erez > > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Cc: mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > > All - > > The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. > > In particular, the proposal: > > - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus has not been reached. > - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. > - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. > - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for implementation or application, but may constrain future implementation opportunities. > > Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. > > Thank you, > > - Cisco: Jeff Squires > - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood > - Sandia: Brian Barrett > - IBM: Richard Treumann > - QLogic: Avneesh Pant > - UTenn: George Bosilca > - HP: David George Solt > - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel > - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray > - ORNL: Richard Graham > - Sun: Terry Dontje > - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > <ATT00001.txt> > > William Gropp > Deputy Director for Research > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies > Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign > > > > > >

1 0

MPI 3.0 general mailing list
by Richard Graham 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

A new mailing list has been created for MPI 3.0 general discussions over arching issues, as well as the continued effort to improve the existing MPI standard document. The mailing list is called mpi-3, and one can subscribe to this list at http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi . Discussions that were taking place in the context of MPI 2.2 that did not make it into 2.2, such as the const discussion, should be moved to this list, as well as new items that come up. Once the list is populated, I will start a discussion of interface changes at MPI 3.0 on this list this is different from the work to add new interface functions. Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Erez Haba 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I don't see any point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this ticket in the next mpi forum meeting. Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM To: MPI 2.2 Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a chance to take a second look at the issues. I'll note that the 17-10 (counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a majority vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling argument for each feature. The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change would require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the change is minor. Bill On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote: Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this email. I will just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with the following results. 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: YES: 17 NO: 4 ABSTAIN: 6 MISSED: 0 Result: Ballot passed http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus created ticket #140. I believe that all the points you mention below have been discussed in the forum meeting(s). Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Cc: mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 All - The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. In particular, the proposal: - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus has not been reached. - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for implementation or application, but may constrain future implementation opportunities. Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. Thank you, - Cisco: Jeff Squires - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood - Sandia: Brian Barrett - IBM: Richard Treumann - QLogic: Avneesh Pant - UTenn: George Bosilca - HP: David George Solt - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray - ORNL: Richard Graham - Sun: Terry Dontje - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 <ATT00001.txt> William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Pavel Shamis (Pasha) 27 May '09

27 May '09

I would like to add Mellanox to the list of organizations that support this letter. Pasha. Richard Treumann wrote: > > All - > > The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI > implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that > proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number of > issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. > > In particular, the proposal: > > - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the > support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus has > not been reached. > - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change and > therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. > - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to > solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. > - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for > implementation or application, but may constrain future implementation > opportunities. > > Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to > the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. > > Thank you, > > - Cisco: Jeff Squires > - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood > - Sandia: Brian Barrett > - IBM: Richard Treumann > - QLogic: Avneesh Pant > - UTenn: George Bosilca > - HP: David George Solt > - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel > - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray > - ORNL: Richard Graham > - Sun: Terry Dontje > - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by William Gropp 27 May '09

27 May '09

This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a chance to take a second look at the issues. I'll note that the 17-10 (counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a majority vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling argument for each feature. The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change would require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the change is minor. Bill On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote: > Hi all, I’m not really sure how to respond to this email. I will > just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with > the following results. > > 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: > YES: > 17 > NO: > 4 > ABSTAIN: > 6 > MISSED: > 0 > Result: > Ballot passed > > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php > > since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few minor > correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus created > ticket #140. > > I believe that all the points you mention below have been discussed > in the forum meeting(s). > > Thanks, > .Erez > > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Cc: mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > > All - > > The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI > implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that > proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number > of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. > > In particular, the proposal: > > - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the > support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus > has not been reached. > - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change > and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. > - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to > solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. > - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for > implementation or application, but may constrain future > implementation opportunities. > > Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to > the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. > > Thank you, > > - Cisco: Jeff Squires > - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood > - Sandia: Brian Barrett > - IBM: Richard Treumann > - QLogic: Avneesh Pant > - UTenn: George Bosilca > - HP: David George Solt > - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel > - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray > - ORNL: Richard Graham > - Sun: Terry Dontje > - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > <ATT00001.txt> William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Erez Haba 27 May '09

27 May '09

Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this email. I will just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with the following results. 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: YES: 17 NO: 4 ABSTAIN: 6 MISSED: 0 Result: Ballot passed http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus created ticket #140. I believe that all the points you mention below have been discussed in the forum meeting(s). Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Cc: mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140 All - The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. In particular, the proposal: - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus has not been reached. - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for implementation or application, but may constrain future implementation opportunities. Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. Thank you, - Cisco: Jeff Squires - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood - Sandia: Brian Barrett - IBM: Richard Treumann - QLogic: Avneesh Pant - UTenn: George Bosilca - HP: David George Solt - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray - ORNL: Richard Graham - Sun: Terry Dontje - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363

1 0

The const proposal - Ticket 140
by Richard Treumann 27 May '09

27 May '09

All - The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate. In particular, the proposal: - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus has not been reached. - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for implementation or application, but may constrain future implementation opportunities. Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact. Thank you, - Cisco: Jeff Squires - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood - Sandia: Brian Barrett - IBM: Richard Treumann - QLogic: Avneesh Pant - UTenn: George Bosilca - HP: David George Solt - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray - ORNL: Richard Graham - Sun: Terry Dontje - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363

1 0