Rich and Jeff and chapter authors, Rich, how do we process the incoming comments. Should we discuss such comments on "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <[email protected]>; and after having a result, replying to the comment with direct email to the author of the comment with a CC to [email protected] ? Everybody can be the starter of such discussion by forwarding such a comments-email to the mpi-forum list together with a meaningful subject mentioning also the comment's author, here e.g. "Fairness of MPI_ANY_SOURCE - Sebastien Boisvert" This helps match the two tracks in mpi-comments (typically only two mails) and mpi-forum (full internal discussion) email lists. Chapter authors, if nobody else started such a discussion, then the chapter author must start the discussion. If there is no specific chapter, then Rich as MPI-3.0 chair takes this role. Jeff, are all chapter authors member of the comments list? Rich, what do you think about this process proposal. You started the idea with public comment, therefore I ask you directly to send out a process rule that we all should use. Best regards Rolf PS: All, please do not use this track for discussing the content of the comment. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Sébastien Boisvert" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:50:29 AM Subject: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012 Dear MPI Forum committee members, I would like to submit a comment on the MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012 for your consideration. Version: MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012. The URL of the version of the MPI standard: http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/draft_standard/mpi3.0_draft_2.pdf Page: 65 Line number: 28 Section: 3.8.1 In: 3. Point-to-Point Communication 3.8 Probe and Cancel 3.8.1 Probe Comment: It says that the source argument of MPI_Iprobe can be MPI_ANY_SOURCE, but it does say anything about fairness. Therefore MPI_ANY_SOURCE can lead to resource starvation. I think it would be better if probing would be done in a round-robin fashion when the source is MPI_ANY_SOURCE so that any MPI rank has an equal chance of having its message probed and received. Presently, the MPI standard contains nothing about which source should be probed when MPI_ANY_SOURCE is provided. I hope you will consider my comment. Sincerely, Sébastien Boisvert PhD student Université Laval _______________________________________________ mpi-comments mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-comments -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email [email protected] High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)