Hi everybody, In the run-up to our kick-off, here's my POV on the subsetting and its possible scope/role in the MPI-3. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. We start this activity because: 1) Certain industrial customers complain about MPI complexity and inadequacy 2) Complexity is going to grow in MPI-3 3) Growing complexity may have growing performance implications As a result of the above, customers drift away from the MPI to home-grown libraries, usually based on sockets. This effectively eliminates fast networks from their scope, unless they can profit from fast IP emulation layers. Moreover, this customer drift, if continued, may make MPI irrelevant in some HPC areas and lead to creation of alternative interfaces there. The main purpose of the Forum, as well as the subsetting WG, is thus to react to customer demand and make MPI faster and easier to use, especially in those areas that are subjected to the increasing customer drift (think, e.g., massive master-slave computations). Basing on these premises, the subsetting, in my mind, should try to: 1) Make MPI standard modular. This may include: a) Splitting the standard functionality into coherent groups that users will be able to select/deselect at init time b) Making implementation of some modules/functionality optional (think dynamic process support) as they are anyway now c) Addressing not only functional groups but also certain aspects of the standard that may not be needed in certain use cases (think communicator management, message tagging, derived datatypes, MPI_ANY_SOURCE support, non-blocking communication, etc.) 2) As part of the modularization, optionally identify the minimum functional MPI subset. This may be: a) Those 6 calls (Init, Rank, Size, Send, Recv, Finalize), possibly w/o communicator management and derived datatypes. b) A more flexible combination of modules actually needed by the user 3) Connect subsetting with other MPI-3 activities (FT, ABI, collectives, etc.) As a result of modularization, we should strive to achieve 1) Simplification of the standard for the newcomers 2) Performance advantages for reasonable module combinations 3) Influence upon the overall shape of the MPI-3 standard There are certainly quite a few concerns here: 1) We may end up complicating the standard and its implementation even further 2) We may facilitate a split of the standard into several mutually incompatible implementation "families" 3) We may cause some valid MPI-3 applications break if they use optional modules not available in the implementation involved 4) We may get carried away by academic considerations and miss the actual customer demands in the process 5) We may be engaging into a lost battle because the MPI standard is way too rigid by design/purpose to be simplified To guard against all this, we need to work closely with other WGs and the Forum as a whole, define our goals as early as possible, and solicit extensive Forum and customer feedback.
From all this, by the time of the Forum meeting in March, we should have at least a couple of slides reflecting our intentions and plans.
Best regards. Alexander -- Dr Alexander Supalov Intel GmbH Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a 50321 Bruehl, Germany Phone: +49 2232 209034 Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 Fax: +49 2232 209029 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *