I think that the problem for the forum will be the unclear semantics of the new calls. MPI_Init is not a good example because it has clear semantics for all users of MPI but not system-level services. The difference with the quiscence calls is that we're trying to provide a way to by-pass to regular MPI semantics and plug into the middle of MPI without precisely defining how the by-pass works. Precise semantics didn't matter for MPI_Init exactly because there has never been a way to look into the MPI implementation until now. The solution to this is to provide very loose semantics to the new calls but this just means that there will actually be no standard way to use the new calls, which is why I'm afraid the forum will not like it. I can think of only two things that we can compare these calls to. The first is the proposed performance hint API. However, this API is just about hints and may not be a good enough analogy for the rest of the forum. The other analogy is the performance profiling APIs that some MPI implementation support. These APIs allow tools to determine some statistics about internal MPI state. If that is the analogy that is drawn, then it is bad for this proposal because I don't think that the performance profiling API ever got much support because of the issues that we're discussing here. Greg Bronevetsky Post-Doctoral Researcher 1028 Building 451 Lawrence Livermore National Lab (925) 424-5756 [email protected] At 02:03 PM 10/24/2008, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
Thanks. I can't speak for the whole Forum, but my impression is that if the choice will be between solving the problem of MPI and CR on one hand, and not solving it on the other hand, a reasonable proposal will go a long way toward convincing the majority, or at least moving the discussion to a still better proposal.
As for the number of calls, this is question of ROI. We're going to add 200 or so fancy calls by the latest guess, while here we have just 2 that offer basic functionality of undeniable value. This should be acceptable.
Finally, I don't know a more implementation specific call than MPI_Init. The proposed calls live close nearby.