December 2011 - mpiwg-coll - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Jim Dinan 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Hi All, This is a reminder that we'll be meeting in 15 minutes. The agenda for this call is to read the new text for tickets #286 and #305 in preparation for a reading at the January Forum meeting. Full text attached to ticket #286 as ticket_286_jan_2012.2.pdf: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/286 Call-in details are below. Talk to you soon, ~Jim. On 12/13/11 1:19 PM, Jim Dinan wrote: > Hi All, > > It looks like Thursday at 5pm CT will work for most of us. We'll borrow > the hybrid WG's bridge: > > Domestic: 866-654-6744 > International: 517-308-8226 > Code: 6086006 > > The agenda for the call is to discuss revised tickets #286 and #305 > which we are putting forward for a formal reading at the next Forum > meeting. > > Cheers, > ~Jim. > > On 12/9/11 9:37 AM, Jim Dinan wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> This is a quick reminder to fill out the doodle poll for those >> interested in MPI_Comm_create_group(). I'd like to hold the meeting at >> the beginning of next week. >> >> http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq >> >> ~Jim. >> >> >> On 12/7/11 1:57 PM, Jim Dinan wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text >>> to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 >>> edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. >>> >>> Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to >>> discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your >>> availability on the doodle poll: >>> >>> http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >>>> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing >>>> list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> In attendance: >>>> >>>> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >>>> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >>>> >>>> Item 1: Name of the routine. >>>> >>>> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >>>> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >>>> >>>> Item 2: Tag versus color. >>>> >>>> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >>>> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The >>>> collective >>>> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict >>>> with >>>> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >>>> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >>>> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an >>>> implementation >>>> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >>>> across tagged collective operations (currently only >>>> MPI_Intercomm_create >>>> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >>>> >>>> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify >>>> that >>>> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >>>> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >>>> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >>>> operations. >>>> >>>> Tasks: >>>> >>>> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above >>>> semantics. >>>> >>>> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >>>> >>>> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>>>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>>>> >>>>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>>>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>>>> Passcode: 6086006 >>>>> >>>>> See you then, >>>>> ~Jim. >>>>> >>>>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If >>>>>> you >>>>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in >>>>>> your >>>>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>>>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As >>>>>> discussed at >>>>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG on >>>>>> the >>>>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>>>>> complicate tag matching. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> ~Jim. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-coll mailing list >>> mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-coll mailing list >> mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-coll mailing list > mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Jim Dinan 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Hi All, It looks like Thursday at 5pm CT will work for most of us. We'll borrow the hybrid WG's bridge: Domestic: 866-654-6744 International: 517-308-8226 Code: 6086006 The agenda for the call is to discuss revised tickets #286 and #305 which we are putting forward for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. Cheers, ~Jim. On 12/9/11 9:37 AM, Jim Dinan wrote: > Hi All, > > This is a quick reminder to fill out the doodle poll for those > interested in MPI_Comm_create_group(). I'd like to hold the meeting at > the beginning of next week. > > http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq > > ~Jim. > > > On 12/7/11 1:57 PM, Jim Dinan wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text >> to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 >> edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. >> >> Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to >> discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your >> availability on the doodle poll: >> >> http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq >> >> Thanks, >> ~Jim. >> >> On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >>> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing >>> list. >>> >>> Best, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> In attendance: >>> >>> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >>> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >>> >>> Item 1: Name of the routine. >>> >>> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >>> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >>> >>> Item 2: Tag versus color. >>> >>> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >>> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The collective >>> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict with >>> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >>> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >>> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an implementation >>> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >>> across tagged collective operations (currently only MPI_Intercomm_create >>> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >>> >>> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify that >>> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >>> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >>> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >>> operations. >>> >>> Tasks: >>> >>> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above >>> semantics. >>> >>> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >>> >>> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >>> >>> >>> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>>> >>>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>>> Passcode: 6086006 >>>> >>>> See you then, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If you >>>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in >>>>> your >>>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>>> >>>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>>> >>>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>>> >>>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As discussed at >>>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG on >>>>> the >>>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>>>> complicate tag matching. >>>>> >>>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> ~Jim. >>>>> >>>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-coll mailing list >> mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-coll mailing list > mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll

1 0

[mpi3-coll] Collective WG Readings
by Torsten Hoefler 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Hello All, In order to prepare for the next MPI Forum meeting readings, please consider carefully reviewing the two tickets brought forward by the collective WG: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/168 (Tue 5-6) and https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/264 (Wed 1-2) Both are ready for a reading, comments are welcome anytime. Thanks & Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC) 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Jim Dinan 09 Dec '11

09 Dec '11

Thanks for the feedback. I've added the text for ticket #305 to the ticket. I'll also update the schedule to include a formal reading of ticket #305 in conjunction with ticket #286; I think we should be able to squeeze it in the same slot to save time. Cheers, ~Jim. On 12/8/11 7:32 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > Jim: > > The new ticket looks fine to me. I suggest we move it > forward so we can have a reading in January (maybe some > others can review it before the telecon). The updated > PDF also looks fine. I was wondering if we have strong > enough language on ordering requirements but I have > convinced myself that the words with the tags discussion > are sufficient. > > Bronis > > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Jim Dinan wrote: > >> Hi Bronis, >> >> Thanks very much for the feedback. I've created a ticket (#305) with >> some initial text for MPI_Intercomm_create: >> >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/305 >> >> I updated the MPI_Comm_create_group text with your corrections and also >> made some additional updates to the tags paragraph (page 228, line 12) >> to hopefully address a few other questions I got off-list. A new PDF is >> attached. I'd appreciate a second look if you have time. >> >> Thanks, >> ~Jim. >> >> On 12/7/11 9:00 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>> >>> Jim: >>> >>> I think it would be good to create a companion ticket to make >>> MPI_Intercomm_create use the tag space. We should get that >>> ticket ready now (I expect it is just a few lines of change) >>> so that it will be in MPI 3.0, assuming ticket 286 passes. >>> >>> Anyway, please change: >>> >>> "new intracommunicator, newcomm, whose communication group is deﬁned by >>> the group argument." >>> >>> to: >>> >>> "new intracommunicator, newcomm, for which the group argument defines >>> the communication group." >>> >>> Also, please change: >>> >>> "to order calls and/or use diﬀerent tag arguments" >>> >>> to >>> >>> "to order calls and/or to use diﬀerenttag arguments" >>> >>> Bronis >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Jim Dinan wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text >>>> to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 >>>> edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. >>>> >>>> Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to >>>> discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your >>>> availability on the doodle poll: >>>> >>>> http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >>>>> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing >>>>> list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> ~Jim. >>>>> >>>>> In attendance: >>>>> >>>>> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >>>>> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >>>>> >>>>> Item 1: Name of the routine. >>>>> >>>>> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >>>>> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >>>>> >>>>> Item 2: Tag versus color. >>>>> >>>>> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >>>>> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The >>>>> collective >>>>> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict >>>>> with >>>>> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >>>>> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >>>>> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an >>>>> implementation >>>>> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >>>>> across tagged collective operations (currently only >>>>> MPI_Intercomm_create >>>>> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >>>>> >>>>> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify >>>>> that >>>>> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >>>>> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >>>>> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >>>>> operations. >>>>> >>>>> Tasks: >>>>> >>>>> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above >>>>> semantics. >>>>> >>>>> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >>>>> >>>>> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>>>>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>>>>> >>>>>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>>>>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>>>>> Passcode: 6086006 >>>>>> >>>>>> See you then, >>>>>> ~Jim. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>>>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. >>>>>>> If you >>>>>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>>>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to >>>>>>> establish a >>>>>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As >>>>>>> discussed at >>>>>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> complicate tag matching. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> ~Jim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>>>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>>>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-coll mailing list >>> mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll >> > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-coll mailing list > mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Jim Dinan 09 Dec '11

09 Dec '11

Hi All, This is a quick reminder to fill out the doodle poll for those interested in MPI_Comm_create_group(). I'd like to hold the meeting at the beginning of next week. http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq ~Jim. On 12/7/11 1:57 PM, Jim Dinan wrote: > Hi All, > > I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text > to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 > edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. > > Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to > discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your > availability on the doodle poll: > > http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq > > Thanks, > ~Jim. > > On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing >> list. >> >> Best, >> ~Jim. >> >> In attendance: >> >> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >> >> Item 1: Name of the routine. >> >> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >> >> Item 2: Tag versus color. >> >> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The collective >> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict with >> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an implementation >> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >> across tagged collective operations (currently only MPI_Intercomm_create >> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >> >> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify that >> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >> operations. >> >> Tasks: >> >> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above >> semantics. >> >> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >> >> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >> >> >> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>> >>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>> Passcode: 6086006 >>> >>> See you then, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If you >>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in your >>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>> >>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>> >>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>> >>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>> >>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As discussed at >>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG on >>>> the >>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>>> complicate tag matching. >>>> >>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-coll mailing list > mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Bronis R. de Supinski 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

Jim: The new ticket looks fine to me. I suggest we move it forward so we can have a reading in January (maybe some others can review it before the telecon). The updated PDF also looks fine. I was wondering if we have strong enough language on ordering requirements but I have convinced myself that the words with the tags discussion are sufficient. Bronis On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Jim Dinan wrote: > Hi Bronis, > > Thanks very much for the feedback. I've created a ticket (#305) with > some initial text for MPI_Intercomm_create: > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/305 > > I updated the MPI_Comm_create_group text with your corrections and also > made some additional updates to the tags paragraph (page 228, line 12) > to hopefully address a few other questions I got off-list. A new PDF is > attached. I'd appreciate a second look if you have time. > > Thanks, > ~Jim. > > On 12/7/11 9:00 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >> >> Jim: >> >> I think it would be good to create a companion ticket to make >> MPI_Intercomm_create use the tag space. We should get that >> ticket ready now (I expect it is just a few lines of change) >> so that it will be in MPI 3.0, assuming ticket 286 passes. >> >> Anyway, please change: >> >> "new intracommunicator, newcomm, whose communication group is deﬁned by >> the group argument." >> >> to: >> >> "new intracommunicator, newcomm, for which the group argument defines >> the communication group." >> >> Also, please change: >> >> "to order calls and/or use diﬀerent tag arguments" >> >> to >> >> "to order calls and/or to use diﬀerenttag arguments" >> >> Bronis >> >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Jim Dinan wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text >>> to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 >>> edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. >>> >>> Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to >>> discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your >>> availability on the doodle poll: >>> >>> http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >>>> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing >>>> list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> In attendance: >>>> >>>> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >>>> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >>>> >>>> Item 1: Name of the routine. >>>> >>>> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >>>> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >>>> >>>> Item 2: Tag versus color. >>>> >>>> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >>>> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The collective >>>> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict with >>>> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >>>> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >>>> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an implementation >>>> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >>>> across tagged collective operations (currently only MPI_Intercomm_create >>>> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >>>> >>>> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify that >>>> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >>>> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >>>> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >>>> operations. >>>> >>>> Tasks: >>>> >>>> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above >>>> semantics. >>>> >>>> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >>>> >>>> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>>>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>>>> >>>>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>>>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>>>> Passcode: 6086006 >>>>> >>>>> See you then, >>>>> ~Jim. >>>>> >>>>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If you >>>>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in >>>>>> your >>>>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>>>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As discussed at >>>>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG >>>>>> on the >>>>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>>>>> complicate tag matching. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> ~Jim. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-coll mailing list >> mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll >

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Jim Dinan 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

Hi Bronis, Thanks very much for the feedback. I've created a ticket (#305) with some initial text for MPI_Intercomm_create: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/305 I updated the MPI_Comm_create_group text with your corrections and also made some additional updates to the tags paragraph (page 228, line 12) to hopefully address a few other questions I got off-list. A new PDF is attached. I'd appreciate a second look if you have time. Thanks, ~Jim. On 12/7/11 9:00 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > Jim: > > I think it would be good to create a companion ticket to make > MPI_Intercomm_create use the tag space. We should get that > ticket ready now (I expect it is just a few lines of change) > so that it will be in MPI 3.0, assuming ticket 286 passes. > > Anyway, please change: > > "new intracommunicator, newcomm, whose communication group is deﬁned by > the group argument." > > to: > > "new intracommunicator, newcomm, for which the group argument defines > the communication group." > > Also, please change: > > "to order calls and/or use diﬀerent tag arguments" > > to > > "to order calls and/or to use diﬀerenttag arguments" > > Bronis > > > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Jim Dinan wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text >> to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 >> edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. >> >> Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to >> discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your >> availability on the doodle poll: >> >> http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq >> >> Thanks, >> ~Jim. >> >> On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >>> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing >>> list. >>> >>> Best, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> In attendance: >>> >>> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >>> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >>> >>> Item 1: Name of the routine. >>> >>> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >>> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >>> >>> Item 2: Tag versus color. >>> >>> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >>> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The collective >>> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict with >>> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >>> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >>> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an implementation >>> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >>> across tagged collective operations (currently only MPI_Intercomm_create >>> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >>> >>> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify that >>> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >>> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >>> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >>> operations. >>> >>> Tasks: >>> >>> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above >>> semantics. >>> >>> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >>> >>> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >>> >>> >>> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>>> >>>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>>> Passcode: 6086006 >>>> >>>> See you then, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If you >>>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in >>>>> your >>>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>>> >>>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>>> >>>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>>> >>>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As discussed at >>>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG >>>>> on the >>>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>>>> complicate tag matching. >>>>> >>>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> ~Jim. >>>>> >>>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-coll mailing list > mpi3-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-coll

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Bronis R. de Supinski 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

Jim: I think it would be good to create a companion ticket to make MPI_Intercomm_create use the tag space. We should get that ticket ready now (I expect it is just a few lines of change) so that it will be in MPI 3.0, assuming ticket 286 passes. Anyway, please change: "new intracommunicator, newcomm, whose communication group is deﬁned by the group argument." to: "new intracommunicator, newcomm, for which the group argument defines the communication group." Also, please change: "to order calls and/or use diﬀerent tag arguments" to "to order calls and/or to use diﬀerenttag arguments" Bronis On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Jim Dinan wrote: > Hi All, > > I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text > to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 > edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. > > Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to > discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your > availability on the doodle poll: > > http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq > > Thanks, > ~Jim. > > On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are >> moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing list. >> >> Best, >> ~Jim. >> >> In attendance: >> >> Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis >> de Supinski, Jeff Hammond >> >> Item 1: Name of the routine. >> >> We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of >> matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. >> >> Item 2: Tag versus color. >> >> We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag >> space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The collective >> tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict with >> any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially >> exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more >> flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an implementation >> to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts >> across tagged collective operations (currently only MPI_Intercomm_create >> and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). >> >> In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify that >> its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward >> compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to >> use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point >> operations. >> >> Tasks: >> >> * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above semantics. >> >> * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. >> >> * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. >> >> >> On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >>> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >>> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >>> >>> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >>> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >>> Passcode: 6086006 >>> >>> See you then, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If you >>>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in your >>>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>>> >>>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>>> >>>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>>> >>>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>>> >>>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As discussed at >>>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG on the >>>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>>> complicate tag matching. >>>> >>>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> ~Jim. >>>> >>>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [mpi3-coll] [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_create_group Meeting
by Jim Dinan 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

Hi All, I've updated the text with feedback from the last meeting, adding text to define a collective tag space. Please take a look at the ticket286 edits in the attached PDF and send any feedback. Also, I'd like to have another conference call early next week to discuss and get ready for a reading in January. Please fill in your availability on the doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/yx5b2f5f5hwc2qzq Thanks, ~Jim. On 11/8/11 3:57 PM, James Dinan wrote: > Hi All, > > Notes from yesterday's meeting are attached. Please note that we are > moving all future discussion of this ticket to the mpi3-coll mailing list. > > Best, > ~Jim. > > In attendance: > > Adam Moody, David Goodell, Jim Dinan, Pavan Balaji, Fab Tiller, Bronis > de Supinski, Jeff Hammond > > Item 1: Name of the routine. > > We decided to stick with MPI_Comm_create group as the best way of > matching the MPI_CLASS_ACTION_SUBSET naming convention. > > Item 2: Tag versus color. > > We decided to use a tag, which is defined to be in a collective tag > space that is distinct from the point-to-point tag space. The collective > tag will follow all MPI tag semantics, however it will not conflict with > any point-to-point tags (including MPI_ANY_TAG). This essentially > exposes the expected implementation in the standard, providing more > flexible semantics to the user. In addition, it allows an implementation > to make more efficient use of the tag space by defining tag conflicts > across tagged collective operations (currently only MPI_Intercomm_create > and MPI_Comm_create_group, but we could define others in the future). > > In a separate ticket, we can update MPI_Intercomm_create to specify that > its tag is also in the collective tag space. This will be backward > compatible, but will make MPI_Intercomm_create considerably easier to > use because its tags will no longer conflict with point-to-point > operations. > > Tasks: > > * Jim will work on a revision of the text that follows the above semantics. > > * The group will reconvene after Thanksgiving to review new text. > > * The group will move discussion to the collectives mailing list. > > > On 11/4/11 11:07 AM, James Dinan wrote: >> Based on the doodle poll, it looks like Monday at 3pm CT will be the >> best time to meet. We'll use the hybrid WG telecon bridge: >> >> Domestic dial number: 866-654-6744 >> International dial number: 517-308-8226 >> Passcode: 6086006 >> >> See you then, >> ~Jim. >> >> On 11/1/11 2:33 PM, James Dinan wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I would like to form a group to review the MPI_Comm_create_group() >>> proposal (#286) for a formal reading at the next Forum meeting. If you >>> are interested in joining the discussion, could you please fill in your >>> availability for a one hour conference call next week: >>> >>> http://www.doodle.com/9tganzq2hqiqy7kt >>> >>> We have a couple issues to discuss: >>> >>> 1.) The name of the function: MPI_Comm_create_group, >>> MPI_Group_comm_create, MPI_Comm_create_from_group, ... >>> >>> 2.) The tag argument: Should we use a tag or a "color" to establish a >>> safe communication conduit on the parent communicator. As discussed at >>> the Forum, using a tag could conflict with the use of MPI_ANY_TAG on the >>> parent communicator. A color would avoid this issue, however it could >>> complicate tag matching. >>> >>> 3.) Changes to the text. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ~Jim. >>> >>> PS- I've attached a copy of the current text with comments from the >>> formal reading at the last Forum meeting (in Acrobat: Comments -> >>> Comments View -> Show Comments List for the full list). >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0