Dear Jed, Thanks for your interest :-). Comments inline.

I was looking through the collectives document from [1]http://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac2/mpi-forum-web/ticket/258 There appear to be some missing functions such as MPI_Neighbor_allreduce(), MPI_Neighbor_allgatherw(), and others. One rule for including new functions into MPI-3.0 was to present a string use-case to the MPI Forum. I am the author of the neighborhood collectives and found use-cases for the proposed functions but failed to find good use-cases for MPI_Neighbor_allreduce() and MPI_Neighbor_allgatherw().

All use-cases I have are in Hoefler, Lorenzen, Lumsdaine: "Sparse Non-Blocking Collectives in Quantum Mechanical Calculations"; http://www.unixer.de/publications/index.php?pub=70 . In particular, the Forum decided against MPI_Neighbor_allgatherw() because there is no MPI_(All)Gatherw() in MPI-2.2. Once somebody finds it necessary to add those functions to the dense collectives, they will be added to the sparse collectives as well. If you have a strong use-case where the datatypes are performance-critical, then please let us know. The MPI_Neighbor_allreducew() text actually still exists in the draft proposal (commented out :-). But as mentioned, I (as a computer scientist) was lacking application use-cases.

There is a comment on that ticket about dropping reduce due to lack of use cases. Well, off the top of my head, MPI_Neighbor_allreducew() is ideal for: 1. sparse matrix-vector multiplication using column-oriented distribution (or transpose multiplication with row-oriented distribution, or symmetric formats) 2. the update in symmetric additive Schwarz 3. basic linear algebraic operations involving partially assembled matrix formats such as those found in non-overlapping domain decomposition methods 4. basic linear algebraic operations involving nested or bordered matrix formats such as show up in multiphysics applications or when solving optimization problems 5. finite element residual evaluation using a non-overlapping element partition (the most common way to implement) 6. finite volume or discontinuous Galerkin flux accumulation using non-overlapping face partition (cell/element partition with redundant flux computation is more common, but both are used) If provided, we would use it immediately in PETSc for the first four (through our VecScatter object which is also used in examples for scenarios 5 and 6).�Is this a sufficient number/importance of use cases to justify neighbor reduce? (Did anyone actually try to come up with use cases?) Well, I was working with applications that couldn't benefit from those use-cases and I don't know the details of PETSc. We need to make a strong point for the MPI Forum to support the new functions. I could provide a reference implementation of those functions if you would be willing to plug them into PETSc to show that the provided semantics are useful.

MPI_Neighbor_allgatherw() is much less essential, but it's still convenient to avoid packing. (Packing by the caller isn't hard, but that argument makes all "w" versions option. It looks inconsistent to skip just this one case. Also, the performance of packing can be delicate in a NUMA environment, so it would be good to do it all through a common mechanism.) Yes, I couldn't agree more. But the Forum requires use-cases (in this case, an example that provides higher performance by using those new functions).

Of course all of these should have non-blocking variants (we never use the blocking versions in PETSc). Sure.

I hope it's not too late to get these in. For MPI-3.0, it may be but MPI-3.1 should come forward soon.

Also, what happened to persistent collectives (including these neighborhood versions)? This page looks pretty bare:�[2]https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/PersColl We would be especially interested in persistent versions of the neighborhood "v" and "w" variants because it lets us build a persistent handle so that the MPI implementation can determine all message sizes once in setup instead of needing to rebuild it in each call (of which there may be thousands or millions). In my opinion, not offering it is an implicit declaration that you think there is no setup that can be amortized across calls. This seems unlikely to me in the case of neighbor collectives. I agree but all proposals regarding persistence are moved to the persistence working group headed by Anthony Skjellum. I am not sure about the status.

All the 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