December 2013 - mpiwg-hybridpm - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Jim Dinan 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

Thanks for all of the feedback. I think Hammond and I should make a pass on the list and see if we can pare it down to address orthogonality and composability concerns. We'll move any info keys that we remove to the work in progress bin so that we don't lose them. ~Jim. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com>wrote: > MPI implementations should use JiT compilation to generate an optimal > message queue for every possible usage. I am mostly joking, but isn't > that possibility part of the rationale for the datatypes design? > > Jeff > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > > Just to re-iterate my concern from the info keys ticket discussion > today... > > > > I worry that we're making so many info keys: > > > > a) we need to examine and make sure that they're all "mostly" (if not > entirely) orthogonal from each other -- and then at least look at the > implications of users asking for multiple of them in a single communicator. > Jim (rightfully) pointed out that all the proposed ones are *likely* > pretty orthogonal already; my point is that we should look through them and > see if there are any unintended 2nd- or 3rd-level interactions when you > compose various info key requests. > > > > b) I think one possible/likely usage scenario is that a user will say "I > don't use MPI semantics A-J on this communicator, so I'll ask for these 10 > info keys." But assuming that the real win for each these info keys is > actually *removing code* from the progress engine (vs. adding more "if" > statements that could be costly because of a memory dereference), then an > MPI implementation may have something like: > > > > - a different progress engine for no-any-source > > - a different progress engine for no-any-tag > > - a different progress engine for no-any-source+no-any-tag > > - ...and maybe a few others > > - the default progress engine > > > > So if you ask for N info keys, you actually don't get an optimized > progress engine because there isn't one supports the particular N info keys > that the user requested. > > > > We all know that at least a bunch of the proposed info keys are > well-known optimizations that would be great to expose. My question is > asking whether this is the right way to expose them -- e.g., should we > really present some kind of interface that shows which optimizations are > available in what combinations, so that a user can ask for something that > will actually result in a nice optimization/speedup/whatever, rather than > "you asked for N things that I don't have a particular implementation for, > so you just get the default progress engine." And it's basically a russian > roulette game of picking subsets of N info keys -- apps have programatic > way to know which combination will do something and which will not. > > > > My point: is there a better way to do the composition of the various > optimizations? > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > >> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > >>> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? > >>> > >>> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, > 2014). :-) > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jeff Squyres > >>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com > >>> For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > >>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Hammond > >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Jeff Hammond 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

MPI implementations should use JiT compilation to generate an optimal message queue for every possible usage. I am mostly joking, but isn't that possibility part of the rationale for the datatypes design? Jeff On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > Just to re-iterate my concern from the info keys ticket discussion today... > > I worry that we're making so many info keys: > > a) we need to examine and make sure that they're all "mostly" (if not entirely) orthogonal from each other -- and then at least look at the implications of users asking for multiple of them in a single communicator. Jim (rightfully) pointed out that all the proposed ones are *likely* pretty orthogonal already; my point is that we should look through them and see if there are any unintended 2nd- or 3rd-level interactions when you compose various info key requests. > > b) I think one possible/likely usage scenario is that a user will say "I don't use MPI semantics A-J on this communicator, so I'll ask for these 10 info keys." But assuming that the real win for each these info keys is actually *removing code* from the progress engine (vs. adding more "if" statements that could be costly because of a memory dereference), then an MPI implementation may have something like: > > - a different progress engine for no-any-source > - a different progress engine for no-any-tag > - a different progress engine for no-any-source+no-any-tag > - ...and maybe a few others > - the default progress engine > > So if you ask for N info keys, you actually don't get an optimized progress engine because there isn't one supports the particular N info keys that the user requested. > > We all know that at least a bunch of the proposed info keys are well-known optimizations that would be great to expose. My question is asking whether this is the right way to expose them -- e.g., should we really present some kind of interface that shows which optimizations are available in what combinations, so that a user can ask for something that will actually result in a nice optimization/speedup/whatever, rather than "you asked for N things that I don't have a particular implementation for, so you just get the default progress engine." And it's basically a russian roulette game of picking subsets of N info keys -- apps have programatic way to know which combination will do something and which will not. > > My point: is there a better way to do the composition of the various optimizations? > > > > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? >>> >>> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Squyres >>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Just to re-iterate my concern from the info keys ticket discussion today... I worry that we're making so many info keys: a) we need to examine and make sure that they're all "mostly" (if not entirely) orthogonal from each other -- and then at least look at the implications of users asking for multiple of them in a single communicator. Jim (rightfully) pointed out that all the proposed ones are *likely* pretty orthogonal already; my point is that we should look through them and see if there are any unintended 2nd- or 3rd-level interactions when you compose various info key requests. b) I think one possible/likely usage scenario is that a user will say "I don't use MPI semantics A-J on this communicator, so I'll ask for these 10 info keys." But assuming that the real win for each these info keys is actually *removing code* from the progress engine (vs. adding more "if" statements that could be costly because of a memory dereference), then an MPI implementation may have something like: - a different progress engine for no-any-source - a different progress engine for no-any-tag - a different progress engine for no-any-source+no-any-tag - ...and maybe a few others - the default progress engine So if you ask for N info keys, you actually don't get an optimized progress engine because there isn't one supports the particular N info keys that the user requested. We all know that at least a bunch of the proposed info keys are well-known optimizations that would be great to expose. My question is asking whether this is the right way to expose them -- e.g., should we really present some kind of interface that shows which optimizations are available in what combinations, so that a user can ask for something that will actually result in a nice optimization/speedup/whatever, rather than "you asked for N things that I don't have a particular implementation for, so you just get the default progress engine." And it's basically a russian roulette game of picking subsets of N info keys -- apps have programatic way to know which combination will do something and which will not. My point: is there a better way to do the composition of the various optimizations? On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? >> >> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Jeff Hammond 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Squyres seems think we need 1-5 implementations to be sure we understand all the issues. He used Barrett's RMA implementation in OpenMPI/Portals4 as an example of necessary but insufficient. My statements are somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure Squyres is going to deny all knowledge of what I've said here :-) Jeff On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > :-) > > Btw, we should have asked the Forum what the implementation requirement for 381 was. I don’t think the Forum would want to know whether it’s possible to implement them. But some folks might want to know if it’ll improve performance. > > — Pavan > > On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> We voted and you were selected to implement both ticket 381 and endpoints. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> Oh, shoot. The time zone change messed up my calendar. Sorry folks. >>> >>> — Pavan >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >>>> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>>>> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? >>>>> >>>>> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>>>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Hammond >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Pavan Balaji 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

:-) Btw, we should have asked the Forum what the implementation requirement for 381 was. I don’t think the Forum would want to know whether it’s possible to implement them. But some folks might want to know if it’ll improve performance. — Pavan On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We voted and you were selected to implement both ticket 381 and endpoints. > > Jeff > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Oh, shoot. The time zone change messed up my calendar. Sorry folks. >> >> — Pavan >> >> On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >>> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>>> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? >>>> >>>> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Squyres >>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Hammond >>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Jeff Hammond 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

We voted and you were selected to implement both ticket 381 and endpoints. Jeff On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Oh, shoot. The time zone change messed up my calendar. Sorry folks. > > — Pavan > > On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? >>> >>> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Squyres >>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Pavan Balaji 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Oh, shoot. The time zone change messed up my calendar. Sorry folks. — Pavan On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? >> >> If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Call today?
by Jeff Hammond 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

i will dial in now. sorry, didn't know it was happening. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? > > If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com

1 0

Call today?
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Dan and I are on the webex -- is anyone else coming? If not, we'll happily cede the time to the next meeting (Jan 13, 2014). :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Meeting Monday?
by Pavan Balaji 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

I’ve used both webex and GH. Let’s try webex again. If things don’t work well again, we can reconsider. — Pavan On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > If you have bootstrap problems w/ webex again on Monday, let's switch to GH (have you used those before / done the bootstrapping there?). > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> Ok, let’s just go with webex then. >> >> — Pavan >> >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would imagine most of us have used webex and GH before, hence no bootstrap is required. >>> >>> I'm fine with webex, too, since like GH, it's not a phone. I was just working within Pavan's preferences. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:46 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, that’s the plan. We have a bunch of changes for the March meeting, so I’d rather not skip it. >>>>> >>>>> Also, can we do telecon instead of webex (and add webex/google hangout later if we need to share docs)? >>>> >>>> Is it really easier? >>>> >>>> My personal experience is: >>>> >>>> 1. webex tends to "just work" more than Google hangouts. >>>> 2. both have "first time bootstrap" issues, but webex tends to be quicker >>>> >>>> Honestly, I'm not trying to promote my own company's tool; it certainly has its own shortcomings. It's just been my experience that webex tends to work easier for a larger group of people than google hangouts. >>>> >>>> As for phones -- Webex has a "use your computer mic/speaker/video" option right on the connection screen. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Squyres >>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >>> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list >> mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list > mpiwg-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0