- mpiwg-large-counts - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Jeff Hammond 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

If users want such a preprocessor solution, they should get it from a third-party implementation. I do not think it belongs in the MPI standard. Jeff > On Oct 21, 2019, at 11:40 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Yes, I understand. > > And providing the new API in a new module mpi_x.h, but with same function names > MPI_Send ... is then also an evil. > Especially because the two MPI_Send(..,int count,..) from mpi.h > and MPI_Send(..,MPI_Count count,..) from mpi_x.h cannot be together > within the same lib because C does not allow to define an ABI-function-Name > that is not identical to the API-function-name. > > Therefore next proposal: > > We do what we planned, but can additionally provide an mpi_l.h header file > containing only a set of aliases > #define MPI_Send(...) MPI_Send_l(...) > ... > > User who changed somehow all their 4 byte integer in into 8 byte integer > can then directly use the new routines without changing all the MPI function calls. > > As far as I understand, wouldn't this add-on proposal fall into the evil category, > or would it? > > Best regards > Rolf > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de>, "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 3:41:53 PM >> Subject: Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the >> many new _l functions in C > >> I agree: breaking ABI in this way is truly evil. >> >> Specifically: compile your app with implementation version X. Then run your app >> with same implementation, but version Y (this is not uncommon for commercial >> ISV MPI apps). Things fail in weird, non-obvious ways (or worse, they *don't* >> fail, but silently give you wrong results). >> >> Speaking as someone who writes code for a living, changing the signature of an >> existing, well-established function is evil. Changing it in ways that a >> compiler may not even warn you about (in forward- and backward-compatility >> scenarios) is TRULY evil. >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 21, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Jeff Hammond via mpiwg-large-counts >>> <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>> >>> ABI is very much a user problem. We are not breaking ABI for this. >>> >>> What is being done now is five years in the making. I’m not sure why you didn’t >>> comment until recently. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:49 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts >>>> <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Tony and all, >>>> >>>>> the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so >>>>> far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>>> >>>> My proposal ia for whole MPI. >>>> Only for few routines we need some additional _x versions. >>>> >>>>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of >>>>> existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of >>>>> count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the >>>>> APIs ... >>>> >>>> The goal is backward compatibility. >>>> And this one is provided. >>>> >>>>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled >>>>> accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at >>>>> runtime ... rounding of integers ... >>>> >>>> Let's recommend to the users of the long coutnt feature that they should at a >>>> check of the version. In C, in can be tested at compile time with cpp. >>>> >>>>> and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible >>>>> reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >>>> >>>> Not a user problem ... >>>> >>>>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole >>>>> group ? :-) >>>> >>>> And also by the plenum. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Rolf >>>> >>>> ----- Tony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least >>>>> attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>>>> >>>>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of >>>>> existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of >>>>> count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the >>>>> APIs ... >>>>> >>>>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled >>>>> accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at >>>>> runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for >>>>> tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to >>>>> go refresh on all the reasons . >>>>> >>>>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole >>>>> group ? :-) >>>>> >>>>> Tony >>>>> >>>>> Anthony Skjellum, PhD >>>>> 205-807-4968 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts >>>>>> <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not >>>>>> substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. >>>>>> The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast >>>>>> instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those >>>>>> rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Was this ever discussed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Second question: >>>>>> Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, >>>>>> i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it correct, that we keep the number of >>>>>> - request handles in request arrays, >>>>>> - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, >>>>>> will stay int? >>>>>> >>>>>> How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? >>>>>> >>>>>> With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of >>>>>> a subroutine is needed only for >>>>>> MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} >>>>>> MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V >>>>>> MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER >>>>>> (18 routines) >>>>>> MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp >>>>>> (1 Routine) >>>>>> MPI_[UN]PACK >>>>>> MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for >>>>>> MPI_...PACK..._external) >>>>>> (3 routines) >>>>>> MPI_GET_COUNT >>>>>> MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) >>>>>> MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) >>>>>> >>>>>> Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? >>>>>> >>>>>> All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems >>>>>> to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count >>>>>> size". >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Rolf >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions >>>>>> >>>>>>> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for >>>>>>> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended >>>>>>> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get >>>>>>> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. >>>>>>> The PR for the Pythonization is >>>>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered >>>>>>> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for >>>>>>> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized >>>>>>> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>>>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>>>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > -- > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) .

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Rolf Rabenseifner 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Dear all, Yes, I understand. And providing the new API in a new module mpi_x.h, but with same function names MPI_Send ... is then also an evil. Especially because the two MPI_Send(..,int count,..) from mpi.h and MPI_Send(..,MPI_Count count,..) from mpi_x.h cannot be together within the same lib because C does not allow to define an ABI-function-Name that is not identical to the API-function-name. Therefore next proposal: We do what we planned, but can additionally provide an mpi_l.h header file containing only a set of aliases #define MPI_Send(...) MPI_Send_l(...) ... User who changed somehow all their 4 byte integer in into 8 byte integer can then directly use the new routines without changing all the MPI function calls. As far as I understand, wouldn't this add-on proposal fall into the evil category, or would it? Best regards Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de>, "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 3:41:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the > many new _l functions in C > I agree: breaking ABI in this way is truly evil. > > Specifically: compile your app with implementation version X. Then run your app > with same implementation, but version Y (this is not uncommon for commercial > ISV MPI apps). Things fail in weird, non-obvious ways (or worse, they *don't* > fail, but silently give you wrong results). > > Speaking as someone who writes code for a living, changing the signature of an > existing, well-established function is evil. Changing it in ways that a > compiler may not even warn you about (in forward- and backward-compatility > scenarios) is TRULY evil. > > > > >> On Oct 21, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Jeff Hammond via mpiwg-large-counts >> <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >> >> ABI is very much a user problem. We are not breaking ABI for this. >> >> What is being done now is five years in the making. I’m not sure why you didn’t >> comment until recently. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:49 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts >>> <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Tony and all, >>> >>>> the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so >>>> far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>> >>> My proposal ia for whole MPI. >>> Only for few routines we need some additional _x versions. >>> >>>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of >>>> existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of >>>> count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the >>>> APIs ... >>> >>> The goal is backward compatibility. >>> And this one is provided. >>> >>>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled >>>> accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at >>>> runtime ... rounding of integers ... >>> >>> Let's recommend to the users of the long coutnt feature that they should at a >>> check of the version. In C, in can be tested at compile time with cpp. >>> >>>> and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible >>>> reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >>> >>> Not a user problem ... >>> >>>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole >>>> group ? :-) >>> >>> And also by the plenum. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Tony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least >>>> attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>>> >>>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of >>>> existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of >>>> count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the >>>> APIs ... >>>> >>>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled >>>> accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at >>>> runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for >>>> tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to >>>> go refresh on all the reasons . >>>> >>>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole >>>> group ? :-) >>>> >>>> Tony >>>> >>>> Anthony Skjellum, PhD >>>> 205-807-4968 >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts >>>>> <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not >>>>> substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. >>>>> The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast >>>>> instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those >>>>> rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. >>>>> >>>>> Was this ever discussed? >>>>> >>>>> Second question: >>>>> Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, >>>>> i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? >>>>> >>>>> Is it correct, that we keep the number of >>>>> - request handles in request arrays, >>>>> - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, >>>>> will stay int? >>>>> >>>>> How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? >>>>> >>>>> With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of >>>>> a subroutine is needed only for >>>>> MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} >>>>> MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V >>>>> MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER >>>>> (18 routines) >>>>> MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp >>>>> (1 Routine) >>>>> MPI_[UN]PACK >>>>> MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for >>>>> MPI_...PACK..._external) >>>>> (3 routines) >>>>> MPI_GET_COUNT >>>>> MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) >>>>> MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) >>>>> >>>>> Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? >>>>> >>>>> All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems >>>>> to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count >>>>> size". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Rolf >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM >>>>>> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions >>>>> >>>>>> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for >>>>>> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended >>>>>> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get >>>>>> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing >>>>>> >>>>>> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. >>>>>> The PR for the Pythonization is >>>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered >>>>>> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for >>>>>> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized >>>>>> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). >>>>>> >>>>>> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) .

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Raffenetti, Kenneth J. 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

+1 do not break ABI in this way. Thanks, Ken On 10/21/19 8:41 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpiwg-large-counts wrote: > I agree: breaking ABI in this way is truly evil. > > Specifically: compile your app with implementation version X. Then run your app with same implementation, but version Y (this is not uncommon for commercial ISV MPI apps). Things fail in weird, non-obvious ways (or worse, they *don't* fail, but silently give you wrong results). > > Speaking as someone who writes code for a living, changing the signature of an existing, well-established function is evil. Changing it in ways that a compiler may not even warn you about (in forward- and backward-compatility scenarios) is TRULY evil. > > > > >> On Oct 21, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Jeff Hammond via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >> >> ABI is very much a user problem. We are not breaking ABI for this. >> >> What is being done now is five years in the making. I’m not sure why you didn’t comment until recently. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:49 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Tony and all, >>> >>>> the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>> >>> My proposal ia for whole MPI. >>> Only for few routines we need some additional _x versions. >>> >>>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... >>> >>> The goal is backward compatibility. >>> And this one is provided. >>> >>>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... >>> >>> Let's recommend to the users of the long coutnt feature that they should at a check of the version. In C, in can be tested at compile time with cpp. >>> >>>> and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >>> >>> Not a user problem ... >>> >>>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) >>> >>> And also by the plenum. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Tony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>>> >>>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... >>>> >>>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >>>> >>>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) >>>> >>>> Tony >>>> >>>> Anthony Skjellum, PhD >>>> 205-807-4968 >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not >>>>> substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. >>>>> The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast >>>>> instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those >>>>> rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. >>>>> >>>>> Was this ever discussed? >>>>> >>>>> Second question: >>>>> Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, >>>>> i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? >>>>> >>>>> Is it correct, that we keep the number of >>>>> - request handles in request arrays, >>>>> - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, >>>>> will stay int? >>>>> >>>>> How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? >>>>> >>>>> With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of >>>>> a subroutine is needed only for >>>>> MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} >>>>> MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V >>>>> MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER >>>>> (18 routines) >>>>> MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp >>>>> (1 Routine) >>>>> MPI_[UN]PACK >>>>> MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for MPI_...PACK..._external) >>>>> (3 routines) >>>>> MPI_GET_COUNT >>>>> MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) >>>>> MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) >>>>> >>>>> Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? >>>>> >>>>> All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems >>>>> to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count size". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Rolf >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM >>>>>> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions >>>>> >>>>>> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for >>>>>> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended >>>>>> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get >>>>>> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing >>>>>> >>>>>> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. >>>>>> The PR for the Pythonization is >>>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered >>>>>> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for >>>>>> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized >>>>>> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). >>>>>> >>>>>> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > >

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

I agree: breaking ABI in this way is truly evil. Specifically: compile your app with implementation version X. Then run your app with same implementation, but version Y (this is not uncommon for commercial ISV MPI apps). Things fail in weird, non-obvious ways (or worse, they *don't* fail, but silently give you wrong results). Speaking as someone who writes code for a living, changing the signature of an existing, well-established function is evil. Changing it in ways that a compiler may not even warn you about (in forward- and backward-compatility scenarios) is TRULY evil. > On Oct 21, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Jeff Hammond via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > ABI is very much a user problem. We are not breaking ABI for this. > > What is being done now is five years in the making. I’m not sure why you didn’t comment until recently. > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:49 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >> >> Dear Tony and all, >> >>> the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >> >> My proposal ia for whole MPI. >> Only for few routines we need some additional _x versions. >> >>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... >> >> The goal is backward compatibility. >> And this one is provided. >> >>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... >> >> Let's recommend to the users of the long coutnt feature that they should at a check of the version. In C, in can be tested at compile time with cpp. >> >>> and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >> >> Not a user problem ... >> >>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) >> >> And also by the plenum. >> >> Best regards >> Rolf >> >> ----- Tony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >>> >>> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... >>> >>> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >>> >>> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> Anthony Skjellum, PhD >>> 205-807-4968 >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not >>>> substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. >>>> The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast >>>> instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those >>>> rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. >>>> >>>> Was this ever discussed? >>>> >>>> Second question: >>>> Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, >>>> i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? >>>> >>>> Is it correct, that we keep the number of >>>> - request handles in request arrays, >>>> - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, >>>> will stay int? >>>> >>>> How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? >>>> >>>> With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of >>>> a subroutine is needed only for >>>> MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} >>>> MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V >>>> MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER >>>> (18 routines) >>>> MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp >>>> (1 Routine) >>>> MPI_[UN]PACK >>>> MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for MPI_...PACK..._external) >>>> (3 routines) >>>> MPI_GET_COUNT >>>> MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) >>>> MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) >>>> >>>> Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? >>>> >>>> All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems >>>> to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count size". >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Rolf >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM >>>>> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions >>>> >>>>> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for >>>>> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. >>>>> >>>>> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended >>>>> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get >>>>> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing >>>>> >>>>> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. >>>>> The PR for the Pythonization is >>>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered >>>>> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for >>>>> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized >>>>> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). >>>>> >>>>> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >> >> -- >> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Jeff Hammond 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

ABI is very much a user problem. We are not breaking ABI for this. What is being done now is five years in the making. I’m not sure why you didn’t comment until recently. Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:49 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > Dear Tony and all, > >> the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. > > My proposal ia for whole MPI. > Only for few routines we need some additional _x versions. > >> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... > > The goal is backward compatibility. > And this one is provided. > >> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... > > Let's recommend to the users of the long coutnt feature that they should at a check of the version. In C, in can be tested at compile time with cpp. > >> and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . > > Not a user problem ... > >> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) > > And also by the plenum. > > Best regards > Rolf > > ----- Tony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. >> >> Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... >> >> In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . >> >> I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) >> >> Tony >> >> Anthony Skjellum, PhD >> 205-807-4968 >> >> >>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not >>> substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. >>> The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast >>> instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those >>> rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. >>> >>> Was this ever discussed? >>> >>> Second question: >>> Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, >>> i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? >>> >>> Is it correct, that we keep the number of >>> - request handles in request arrays, >>> - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, >>> will stay int? >>> >>> How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? >>> >>> With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of >>> a subroutine is needed only for >>> MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} >>> MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V >>> MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER >>> (18 routines) >>> MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp >>> (1 Routine) >>> MPI_[UN]PACK >>> MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for MPI_...PACK..._external) >>> (3 routines) >>> MPI_GET_COUNT >>> MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) >>> MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) >>> >>> Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? >>> >>> All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems >>> to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count size". >>> >>> Best regards >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >>>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM >>>> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions >>> >>>> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for >>>> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. >>>> >>>> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended >>>> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get >>>> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing >>>> >>>> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. >>>> The PR for the Pythonization is >>>> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered >>>> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for >>>> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized >>>> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). >>>> >>>> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Squyres >>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . >>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . >>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . >>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . >>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >>> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > > -- > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Rolf Rabenseifner 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Dear Tony and all, > the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. My proposal ia for whole MPI. Only for few routines we need some additional _x versions. > Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... The goal is backward compatibility. And this one is provided. > In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... Let's recommend to the users of the long coutnt feature that they should at a check of the version. In C, in can be tested at compile time with cpp. > and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . Not a user problem ... > I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) And also by the plenum. Best regards Rolf ----- Tony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. > > Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... > > In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . > > I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) > > Tony > > Anthony Skjellum, PhD > 205-807-4968 > > > > On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not > > substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. > > The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast > > instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those > > rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. > > > > Was this ever discussed? > > > > Second question: > > Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, > > i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? > > > > Is it correct, that we keep the number of > > - request handles in request arrays, > > - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, > > will stay int? > > > > How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? > > > > With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of > > a subroutine is needed only for > > MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} > > MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V > > MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER > > (18 routines) > > MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp > > (1 Routine) > > MPI_[UN]PACK > > MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for MPI_...PACK..._external) > > (3 routines) > > MPI_GET_COUNT > > MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) > > MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) > > > > Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? > > > > All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems > > to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count size". > > > > Best regards > > Rolf > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM > >> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions > > > >> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for > >> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. > >> > >> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended > >> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get > >> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: > >> > >> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing > >> > >> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. > >> The PR for the Pythonization is > >> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered > >> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for > >> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized > >> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). > >> > >> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Squyres > >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > >> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > > > > -- > > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . > > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . > > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . > > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . > > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > > mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) .

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Tony Skjellum 20 Oct '19

20 Oct '19

Rolf, the group has labored over each area... 1 sided has had the least attention so far... All of MPI is to be made 64 bit clean not parts. Partial answer to your earliest question in the note: Changing the meaning of existing APIs was disallowed some time ago. Certainly, for in arguments of count , replacing int with MPI_Count is a partial solution. But it changes the APIs ... In C, a program written for the assumption of big count and compiled accidentally with an MPI-3 compliant MPI will silently build and fail at runtime ... rounding of integers ... and changing the AbI violates the ABI for tools and such — two possible reasons why not chosen ... but we will have to go refresh on all the reasons . I am sure you will get extensive feedback on these questions from the whole group ? :-) Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 > On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not > substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. > The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast > instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those > rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. > > Was this ever discussed? > > Second question: > Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, > i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? > > Is it correct, that we keep the number of > - request handles in request arrays, > - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, > will stay int? > > How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? > > With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of > a subroutine is needed only for > MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} > MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V > MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER > (18 routines) > MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp > (1 Routine) > MPI_[UN]PACK > MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for MPI_...PACK..._external) > (3 routines) > MPI_GET_COUNT > MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) > MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) > > Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? > > All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems > to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count size". > > Best regards > Rolf > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM >> Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions > >> As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for >> Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. >> >> These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended >> solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get >> them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: >> >> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing >> >> Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. >> The PR for the Pythonization is >> https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered >> chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for >> `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized >> yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). >> >> Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-large-counts mailing list >> mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > > -- > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) . > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts

1 0

A perfect trick in C with similar API as with Fortran overloading - instead of the many new _l functions in C
by Rolf Rabenseifner 20 Oct '19

20 Oct '19

Dear all, a participant in my latest course asked me, whether we not substituting in by MPI_Count in all "int xxxxx" input arguments. The compiler automatically would cast to MPI_Count which may be a fast instruction. Then we need the new _x or _l functions only for those rare functions with MPI_Count as output or array argument. Was this ever discussed? Second question: Does the large Count roup plan, only to use MPI_Count for data, i.e., only in communication, I/O, and derived type routines? Is it correct, that we keep the number of - request handles in request arrays, - ranks an size in/of communicator and group handles, will stay int? How do we handle disp in 1-sided communication? With this approach, it seems that explicit MPI_Count versions of a subroutine is needed only for MPI_[I][NEIGHBOR_]{ALLTOALL|ALLGATHER}{V|W} MPI_[I]{GATHER|SCATTER}V MPI_[I]REDUCE_SCATTER (18 routines) MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY --> *disp (1 Routine) MPI_[UN]PACK MPI_PACK_SIZE _x/_l version should have MPI_Aint (same as for MPI_...PACK..._external) (3 routines) MPI_GET_COUNT MPI_GET_ELEMENTS (has already an _X version) MPI_TYPE_SIZE (has already an _X version) Which solution exists for MPI_CONVERSION_FN_NULL? All other 100 routines with "int count" and "int size" seems to be solved with directly changing it into "MPI_Count count" and "MPI_Count size". Best regards Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > To: "mpiwg-large-counts" <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Cc: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:26:23 PM > Subject: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions > As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for > Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. > > These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended > solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get > them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: > > https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing > > Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. > The PR for the Pythonization is > https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered > chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for > `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized > yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). > > Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) .

1 0

Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Pythonizing instructions
by HOLMES Daniel 19 Oct '19

19 Oct '19

Hi Jeff, Thanks for doing this. I’ll take a look on my Monday. Cheers, Dan. — Dr Daniel Holmes PhD Architect (HPC Research) d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465 Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088 Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT — The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. — On 19 Oct 2019, at 21:26, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. The PR for the Pythonization is https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ mpiwg-large-counts mailing list mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts

1 0

Pythonizing instructions
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 19 Oct '19

19 Oct '19

As discussed in our last meeting, I've written a first take at instructions for Chapter Authors for how to write Pythonized functions. These instructions are not yet intended for a wide audience -- they are intended solely for the working group. Let's iterate on them here in the WG and get them to a good enough state before sharing them widely: https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/large-count-issues/wiki/pythonizing Puri/Tony/Dan: please try to use these instructions to Pythonize a few bindings. The PR for the Pythonization is https://github.com/mpiwg-large-count/mpi-standard/pull/2. All even-numbered chapters are done, and a small number of odd-numbered chapters. Grep for `funcdef` in chapter *.tex files to find a chapter that hasn't been Pythonized yet (funcdef is the LaTeX macro for hard-coded LaTeX macros). Send your feedback here and/or we'll discuss on Wednesday. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0