I would agree here. Especially as we now have REVOKE. Wesley On May 8, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Aur�lien Bouteiller <[email protected]> wrote:
This is a problem child. It changes the state of valid communicators by making operations operate on sparse communicators that contain holes (failed processes). This is difficult to implement and will have adverse performance hit, even outside failure cases. The functionality is duplicated with revoke/shrink, group_create, etc. I'm for killing this one, it has become irrelevant in the new context.
Aurelien
Le 7 mai 2013 � 17:19, Wesley Bland <[email protected]> a �crit :
author: jjhursey
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/292
This proposal put forth a new function, MPI_COMM_KILL, that would exclude a remote rank from any further communication in all communicators in the MPI universe.
One of the concerns of the forum is that it was starting to define semantics for failure scenarios other than fail-stop errors, specifically transient/intermittent failures. This was moved out of the previous RTS proposal because of this distinction. In the context of the current proposal, ULFM, this isn't really required anymore as the ULFM proposal states that once a process starts exhibiting failure, it is treated as fail-stop and should be excluded from further participation. _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft
-- * Dr. Aur�lien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375
_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft