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 [email protected] or [email protected] 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 [[email protected]] on behalf of Jeff Hammond [[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

-- Pavan Balaji ✉️ http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

-- Jeff Hammond [email protected] http://jeffhammond.github.io/

-- Jeff Hammond [email protected] http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum