March 2011 - Mpi3-bwcompat - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Fwd: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Count ticket
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

Bwcompat WG -- I'm kinda thinking that this means we won't be able to have a first reading by next meeting. Getting reviews by the chapter authors takes time... Begin forwarded message: > From: William Gropp <wgropp_at_[hidden]> > Date: March 4, 2011 5:41:07 PM EST > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum_at_[hidden]> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Count ticket > Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum_at_[hidden]> > > Changes to the other chapters require at least the chapter author's review. They should do whatever they need to do to ensure that the changes make sense (so that roughly means they should review the whole ticket). > > It would be good if they're done by the first reading. If they find something that needs to be changed, other than something that meets everyone's definition of a trivial change, then you'd need to fix it and have a new first reading. > > Bill > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> Forum -- >> >> Sorry; I know we've discussed this a number of times, but they've all gotten jumbled in my head and I don't remember what was decided. >> >> We are bringing the MPI_Count ticket to the Forum for a first reading in Chicago. Unfortunately, this ticket will span a bunch of chapters (5 or 6, I think). >> >> Do we have to get the individual sections of text reviewed by each chapter committee? And are they expected to review the *whole* ticket, and then double check/review it in the context of *their specific chapter*? (I ask because the text in one chapter doesn't really make sense without the rest of the text in the ticket) >> >> If we do need reviews from each chapter committee, do they need to be complete by the first reading? >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres_at_[hidden] >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum_at_[hidden] >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > 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_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Plan for MPI_Count
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

On Mar 4, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >> - Dave will send a final PDF to the bwcompat group to review early next week > > Are we going to have 2 PDF files, or one with both tickets worth of changes merged but properly annotated? I think one PDF with the appropriate ticket markings should be fine. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Plan for MPI_Count
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

Jeff Squyres wrote on Fri, 4 Mar 2011 at 10:58:52 > BW Compatibility group -- > > On the call today, we decided: > > - Jeff abandoned the idea of explicitly-sized count types > - Fab will split the collectives out into a separate ticket Done, collectives are now in their own ticket, #269: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/269 > - Dave will send a final PDF to the bwcompat group to review early next week Are we going to have 2 PDF files, or one with both tickets worth of changes merged but properly annotated? > - We need to review this PDF ASAP so that it can be sent to the Forum by > COB Friday, March 11, 2011 (so that it meets the 2-weeks-before-the-Forum- > meeting requirement for a first reading) > > I'll be sending a mail shortly to the Forum mailing list asking how to (formally) > review this text, because it spans 6 chapters. >

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI timer requests
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

I have mixed feelings about the idea. When making your case to the Forum you'll need to explain why this can't or shouldn't be done with the existing generalized request framework, or alternatively Rob Latham's greq extensions. I see the convenience to the user, but I don't have a clear view of what the impact would be on implementations. I suspect it would be modest, but it does affect progress, so sometimes tricky things show up after deeper thought or some implementation work. -Dave On Mar 4, 2011, at 2:46 PM CST, Jeff Squyres wrote: > All -- > > Fab and I want to introduce the idea of "timer" MPI_Requests at the next Forum meeting. We have no ticket yet; we just want to introduce the idea to the Forum and see if it is liked. > > We made up a few slides about the concept -- before we throw it out to the rest of the Forum, would you (the bwcompat group) have a look and let us know your feedback? We know that this won't ultimately end up in the bwcompat group, but we don't know exactly where it will end up yet, and we wanted to get *some* feedback before presenting it to the greater Forum. > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI_Request_timers > > Thanks! > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres_at_[hidden] > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat

1 0

Accepted: MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

*

1 0

MPI timer requests
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

All -- Fab and I want to introduce the idea of "timer" MPI_Requests at the next Forum meeting. We have no ticket yet; we just want to introduce the idea to the Forum and see if it is liked. We made up a few slides about the concept -- before we throw it out to the rest of the Forum, would you (the bwcompat group) have a look and let us know your feedback? We know that this won't ultimately end up in the bwcompat group, but we don't know exactly where it will end up yet, and we wanted to get *some* feedback before presenting it to the greater Forum. https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI_Request_timers Thanks! -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Plan for MPI_Count
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

BW Compatibility group -- On the call today, we decided: - Jeff abandoned the idea of explicitly-sized count types - Fab will split the collectives out into a separate ticket - Dave will send a final PDF to the bwcompat group to review early next week - We need to review this PDF ASAP so that it can be sent to the Forum by COB Friday, March 11, 2011 (so that it meets the 2-weeks-before-the-Forum-meeting requirement for a first reading) I'll be sending a mail shortly to the Forum mailing list asking how to (formally) review this text, because it spans 6 chapters. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

When: Friday, March 11, 2011 12:00 PM-1:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: 866.409.2889 id 3582114059 Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* One-off meeting for next week to make sure MPI_ Count and collective change pdfs goes out before the deadline Virtual room info in case we need it: https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=EPSUR7UU65 U.S. toll number 702.696.4520 U.S. toll-free dial-in number International â see attached pdf 866.409.2889 - Conference Code: 3582114059 *

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

Hey, Dave's the slacker here, not me! At least I came up with pseudo-formed thoughts! :-p See you in ~30 mins... Maybe we'll make this a short call if Fab convinces me that explicit sizes are Bad. On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > I think we should meet to at least discuss Jeffs so-called thought of making count size explicit. :P > > -Fab > > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Solt, David George > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:35 AM > To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated > > Sorry, we have a product deadline on Monday and this week was the last week for a class Im teaching and grades are due tomorrow. Im already not sleeping or I would have stayed up late last night to do it. > > Do we want to meet today to discuss the ticket or should I cancel today and setup a meeting for sometime next week so we can look at the pdf as well? > > Thanks, > Dave > > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Terry Dontje > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:31 AM > To: mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated > > Aw man, you mean I reviewed that pdf for no good reason :-). I was wondering why it was 3 weeks old. > > --td > > On 03/04/2011 11:19 AM, Solt, David George wrote: > Sorry, pdf is not ready yet. I will work on it over the weekend. > Dave > > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Terry Dontje > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:00 AM > To: mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > Subject: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated > > > On 03/02/2011 08:28 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I've updated ticket 265 with the comments from the last meeting. Please take a look. We'll go over the PDF on Friday (right David?) and hopefully agree that it's ready to send out for wider review. > > TBD still (I think) is whether to split it into two tickets, one for the basic functionality, the other for the new 'w' collectives. > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/265 > > -Fab > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat > Fab, a few comments on the pdf ticket265 items. > > 1. Page 16 line 14, should this section actually call out the *_X functions? > 2. Page 103 line 35, should "MPI_GET_COUNT returns and MPI_GET_COUNT_X return..." > really be "MPI_GET_COUNT and MPI_GET_COUNT_X both return..." > 3. Page 125 line 5, should there be a MPI_Pack_size_X routine? > 4. Page 410 line 42, Should "MPI_GET_COUNT will return..." really be > "MPI_GET_COUNT and MPI_GET_COUNT_X will return..." > > -- > <image001.gif> > Terry D. Dontje | Principal Software Engineer > Developer Tools Engineering | +1.781.442.2631 > Oracle - Performance Technologies > 95 Network Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 > Email terry.dontje_at_[hidden] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat > > > -- > <image001.gif> > Terry D. Dontje | Principal Software Engineer > Developer Tools Engineering | +1.781.442.2631 > Oracle - Performance Technologies > 95 Network Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 > Email terry.dontje_at_[hidden] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated
by unknown＠example.com 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

I think we should meet to at least discuss Jeff's so-called "thought" of making count size explicit. :P -Fab From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Solt, David George Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:35 AM To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated Sorry, we have a product deadline on Monday and this week was the last week for a class I'm teaching and grades are due tomorrow. I'm already not sleeping or I would have stayed up late last night to do it. Do we want to meet today to discuss the ticket or should I cancel today and setup a meeting for sometime next week so we can look at the pdf as well? Thanks, Dave From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Terry Dontje Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:31 AM To: mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated Aw man, you mean I reviewed that pdf for no good reason :-). I was wondering why it was 3 weeks old. --td On 03/04/2011 11:19 AM, Solt, David George wrote: Sorry, pdf is not ready yet. I will work on it over the weekend. Dave From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]<mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]> [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Terry Dontje Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:00 AM To: mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]<mailto:mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]> Subject: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Fwd: Re: ticket 265 udpated On 03/02/2011 08:28 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: Hi Folks, I've updated ticket 265 with the comments from the last meeting. Please take a look. We'll go over the PDF on Friday (right David?) and hopefully agree that it's ready to send out for wider review. TBD still (I think) is whether to split it into two tickets, one for the basic functionality, the other for the new 'w' collectives. https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/265 -Fab _______________________________________________ Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]<mailto:Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat Fab, a few comments on the pdf ticket265 items. 1. Page 16 line 14, should this section actually call out the *_X functions? 2. Page 103 line 35, should "MPI_GET_COUNT returns and MPI_GET_COUNT_X return..." really be "MPI_GET_COUNT and MPI_GET_COUNT_X both return..." 3. Page 125 line 5, should there be a MPI_Pack_size_X routine? 4. Page 410 line 42, Should "MPI_GET_COUNT will return..." really be "MPI_GET_COUNT and MPI_GET_COUNT_X will return..." -- [Oracle] Terry D. Dontje | Principal Software Engineer Developer Tools Engineering | +1.781.442.2631 Oracle - Performance Technologies 95 Network Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 Email terry.dontje_at_[hidden]<mailto:terry.dontje_at_[hidden]> _______________________________________________ Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]<mailto:Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat -- [Oracle] Terry D. Dontje | Principal Software Engineer Developer Tools Engineering | +1.781.442.2631 Oracle - Performance Technologies 95 Network Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 Email terry.dontje_at_[hidden]<mailto:terry.dontje_at_[hidden]> *

1 0