During the discussion of the run-though stabilization proposal today on the teleconf, we spent a while discussing the expected behavior of MPI_Init and MPI_Finalize in the presence of process failures. I would like to broaden the discussion a bit to help pin down the expected behavior. MPI_Init(): ----------- Problem: If a process fails before or during MPI_Init, what should the MPI implementation do? The current standard says nothing about the return value of MPI_Init() (Ch. 8.7). To the greatest possible extent the application should not be put in danger if it wishes to ignore errors (assumes MPI_ERRORS_ARE_FATAL), so returning an error from this function (in contrast to aborting the job) might be dangerous. However, if the application is prepared to handle process failures, it is unable to communicate that information to the MPI implementation until after the completion of MPI_Init(). So a couple of solutions were presented each with pros and cons (please fill in if I missed any): 1) If a process fails in MPI_Init() (default error handler is MPI_ERRORS_ARE_FATAL) then the entire job is aborted (similar to calling MPI_Abort on MPI_COMM_WORLD). 2) If a process fails in MPI_Init() the MPI implementation will return an appropriate error code/class (e.g., MPI_ERR_RANK_FAIL_STOP), and all subsequent calls into the MPI implementation will return the error class MPI_ERR_OTHER (should be create a MPI_ERR_NOT_ACTIVE?). Applications should eventually notice the error and terminate. 3) Allow the application to register only the MPI_ERRORS_RETURN handle on MPI_COMM_WORLD before MPI_Init() using the MPI_Errhandler_set() function. Errors that occur before the MPI_Errhandler_set() call are fatal. Errors afterward, including during MPI_Init() are not fatal. In the cases where MPI_Init() returns MPI_ERR_RANK_FAIL_STOP to indicate a process failure, is the library usable or not? If the application can continue running through the failure, then the MPI library should still be usable, thus MPI_Init() must be fault tolerant in its initialization to be able to handle process failures. If the MPI implementation finds itself in trouble and cannot continue it should return MPI_ERR_CANNOT_CONTINUE from all subsequent calls including MPI_Init, if possible. MPI_Finalize(): --------------- Problem: If a process fails before or during MPI_Finalize (and the error handler is not MPI_ERRORS_ARE_FATAL), what should this function return? Should that return value be consistent to all processes? To preserve locality of fault handling, a local process should not be explicitly forced to recognize the failure of a peer process that they never interact with neither directly (e.g., point-to-point) or indirectly (e.g., collective). So MPI_Finalize should be fault tolerant and keep trying to complete even in the presence of failures. MPI_Finalize is not required to be a collective operation, though it is often implemented that way. An implementation may need to delay the return from MPI_Finalize until its role in the failure information distribution channel is complete. But we should not require a multi-phase commit protocol to ensure that everyone either succeeds or returns some error. Implementations may do so internally in order to ensure that MPI_Finalize does not hang. If MPI_Finalize returns an error (say MPI_ERR_RANK_FAIL_STOP indicating a 'new to this rank' failure), what good is this information to the application? It cannot query for which rank(s) failed since MPI has been finalized. Nor can it initiate recovery. The best it could do is assume that all other processes failed and take local action. MPI_Finalize: MPI_COMM_WORLD process rank 0: -------------------------------------------- In chapter 8, Example 8.7 illustrates that "Although it is not required that all processes return from MPI_Finalize, it is required that at least process 0 in MPI_COMM_WORLD return, so that users can know that the MPI portion of the computation is over." We deduced that the reasoning for this explanation was to allow for MPI implementation that create and destroy MPI processes during init/finalize from rank 0. Or worded differently, rank 0 is the only rank that can be assumed to exist before MPI_Init and after MPI_Finalize. Problem: So what if rank 0 fails at some point during the computation (or just some point during MPI_Finalize)? In the proposal, I added an advice to users to tell them to not depend on any specific ranks to exist before MPI_Init or after MPI_Finalize. So, in a faulty environment, the example will produce incorrect results under certain failure scenarios (e.g., failure of rank 0). In an MPI environment that depends on rank 0 for process creation and destruction, the failure of rank 0 is (should be?) critical and the MPI implementation will either abort the job or return MPI_ERR_CANNOT_CONTINUE from all calls to the MPI implementation. So we believe that the advice to users was a sufficient addition to this section. What do others think? So MPI_Init seems to be a more complex issue than MPI_Finalize. What do folks think about the presented problems and possible solutions? Are there other issues not mentioned here that we should be addressing? -- Josh Run-Through Stabilization Proposal: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/ft/run_through_stabilizati... ------------------------------------ Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~jjhursey