Thanks. I meant the JOIN per se as a way of establishing the communicator. Do we need that still? What practically relevant cases can be provided to justify its continuing existence? If there are none, we should rather deprecate the JOIN and drop the IJOIN. Good point on the CANCEL. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Hursey Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:25 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Nonblocking Process Creation and Management Since join() does a handshake to create the new communicator, it should be delayed by the remote side of the protocol. A nonblocking version would allow the application to possibly do other computation while waiting for the remote side. As far as Cancel, I have been thinking that it might be useful for Accept and Connect. Though with the normal problems of Cancel, I don't know how to really specify it. I want to look into it a bit more before next week to see if anything useful can be said of using Cancel with Accept/Connect. -- Josh On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Supalov, Alexander wrote:

Hi,

Do we really need the IJOIN thing? I think the JOIN itself should be deprecated. Just as CANCEL, by the way.

Best regards.

Alexander

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Josh Hursey Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:04 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: [Mpi3-ft] Nonblocking Process Creation and Management

I extended and cleaned up the Nonblocking Process Creation and Management proposal on the wiki: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/Async-proc-mgmt

I added the rest of the nonblocking interface proposals, and touched up some of the language. I do not have an implementation yet, but will work on that next. There are a few items that I need to refine a bit still (e.g., MPI_Cancel, mixing of blocking and nonblocking), but this should give us a foundation to start from.

I would like to talk about this next week during our working group slot at the MPI Forum meeting.

Let me know what you think, and if you see any problems.

Thanks, Josh

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.