March 2015 - mpiwg-p2p - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Next meeting: 16th March 2015 11am Central US
by Blocksome, Michael 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

I’ve got some comments on the info keys tickets – do you prefer to have the discussion in the tickets or on the mailing list (so that the ticket is more readable as a proposal “draft”) ? Thanks, Mike From: mpiwg-p2p [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Holmes Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:01 AM To: MPI WG Point To Point Communications working group Subject: Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Next meeting: 16th March 2015 11am Central US Hi All, At the last telco meeting, Jim asked for a to-do list of the tasks needed to move communicator assertions forward. Please find below a first draft of such a task list. Could we agree that this is a good list? If you see something odd/missing, reply to this email group. To-do list for communicator assertions 0) Gather evidence to support "no-one will be affected by backwards incompatibility". (e.g. chase Pavan, who volunteered to do this for major MPICH users) 1) Change behaviour of MPI_COMM_DUP so that INFO keys are *not* propagated to new comm. (include AtoU: if you want to dup INFO use MPI_COMM_DUP_WITH_INFO, with example) 2) Discuss whether attributes (plus, anything else?) should be propagated by MPI_COMM_DUP. (default presumption is yes, they should still be propagated). 3) Find all occurrence of language in the MPI Standard that suggests INFO keys are hints. a) Change or remove any generic statements like "INFO keys cannot change semantics". (e.g. change to "cannot change observable semantics" or remove) b) For each occurrence, determine if it should continue to suggest hint status (e.g. a particular key, most likely for the I/O keys but maybe also some RMA keys) A) Convert ticket 381 into "make comm assertions doable" proposal (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) B) Get "no wildcard" INFO keys proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) C) Get "no ordering" INFO key proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) D) Get "no cancel" INFO keys proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) E) Discuss other INFO key proposals, e.g. "only wildcard", "no non-blocking", "no underflow" Cheers, Dan. On 13/03/2015 19:22, Daniel Holmes wrote: Hi All, The next point-to-point teleconference will be on Monday 16th March 2015 at 11am Central US via webex. Connection details are on the point-to-point wiki page: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/PtpWikiPage Agenda: 1) "Can INFO keys change the semantic behaviour of MPI?" issue - following the discussion at the face-to-face meeting, we seem to have a workable way forward on this issue! 2) New communicator INFO keys - it looks like these will be allowed, so we should define a few and get a proposal ready for the next face-to-face meeting 3) Progress on Arecv and Fsend or ReceiveReduce? 4) Other stuff? Cheers, Dan. -- Dan Holmes Applications Consultant in HPC Research EPCC, The University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building The Kings Buildings Peter Guthrie Tait Road Edinburgh EH9 3FD T: +44(0)131 651 3465 E: dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Next meeting: 16th March 2015 11am Central US
by Daniel Holmes 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

Hi All, At the last telco meeting, Jim asked for a to-do list of the tasks needed to move communicator assertions forward. Please find below a first draft of such a task list. Could we agree that this is a good list? If you see something odd/missing, reply to this email group. _To-do list for communicator assertions__ _ 0) Gather evidence to support "no-one will be affected by backwards incompatibility". (e.g. chase Pavan, who volunteered to do this for major MPICH users) 1) Change behaviour of MPI_COMM_DUP so that INFO keys are *not* propagated to new comm. (include AtoU: if you want to dup INFO use MPI_COMM_DUP_WITH_INFO, with example) 2) Discuss whether attributes (plus, anything else?) should be propagated by MPI_COMM_DUP. (default presumption is yes, they should still be propagated). 3) Find all occurrence of language in the MPI Standard that suggests INFO keys are hints. a) Change or remove any generic statements like "INFO keys cannot change semantics". (e.g. change to "cannot change observable semantics" or remove) b) For each occurrence, determine if it should continue to suggest hint status (e.g. a particular key, most likely for the I/O keys but maybe also some RMA keys) A) Convert ticket 381 into "make comm assertions doable" proposal (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) B) Get "no wildcard" INFO keys proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) C) Get "no ordering" INFO key proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) D) Get "no cancel" INFO keys proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 2015 - Chicago?) E) Discuss other INFO key proposals, e.g. "only wildcard", "no non-blocking", "no underflow" Cheers, Dan. On 13/03/2015 19:22, Daniel Holmes wrote: > Hi All, > > The next point-to-point teleconference will be on Monday 16th March > 2015 at 11am Central US via webex. > > Connection details are on the point-to-point wiki page: > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/PtpWikiPage > > Agenda: > 1) "Can INFO keys change the semantic behaviour of MPI?" issue - > following the discussion at the face-to-face meeting, we seem to have > a workable way forward on this issue! > 2) New communicator INFO keys - it looks like these will be allowed, > so we should define a few and get a proposal ready for the next > face-to-face meeting > 3) Progress on Arecv and Fsend or ReceiveReduce? > 4) Other stuff? > > Cheers, > Dan. > -- Dan Holmes Applications Consultant in HPC Research EPCC, The University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building The Kings Buildings Peter Guthrie Tait Road Edinburgh EH9 3FD T: +44(0)131 651 3465 E: dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Next meeting: 16th March 2015 11am Central US
by Daniel Holmes 13 Mar '15

13 Mar '15

Hi All, The next point-to-point teleconference will be on Monday 16th March 2015 at 11am Central US via webex. Connection details are on the point-to-point wiki page: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/PtpWikiPage Agenda: 1) "Can INFO keys change the semantic behaviour of MPI?" issue - following the discussion at the face-to-face meeting, we seem to have a workable way forward on this issue! 2) New communicator INFO keys - it looks like these will be allowed, so we should define a few and get a proposal ready for the next face-to-face meeting 3) Progress on Arecv and Fsend or ReceiveReduce? 4) Other stuff? Cheers, Dan. -- Dan Holmes Applications Consultant in HPC Research EPCC, The University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building The Kings Buildings Peter Guthrie Tait Road Edinburgh EH9 3FD T: +44(0)131 651 3465 E: dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] [Mpi-forum] Text issues with MPI-3.1 point-to-point chapter as at revision r2030
by William Gropp 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

Exactly:) One question for the forum is whether they want all such inconsistencies fixed in 3.1, or whether the document is now frozen. Bill On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Oh ok, I see now - those variables are of type INTEGER continued from the previous line of code. As this sort of continuation should be more indented then the formatting is fine in the new document for these two lines. > > Cheers, > Dan. > > On 04/03/2015 11:55, William Gropp wrote: >> What’s incorrect? The style for the binding is that the continuation lines should be indented. There were many inconsistencies in prior versions and I’ve tried to find and fix these (I’ve missed some, including new ones such as p 79, line 32, which is in fact incorrectly indented). >> >> Bill >> >> On Mar 4, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> page 79 line 42: white space indenting is incorrect >>> >>> page 80 line 33: white space indenting is incorrect >> > > -- > Dan Holmes > Applications Consultant in HPC Research > EPCC, The University of Edinburgh > James Clerk Maxwell Building > The Kings Buildings > Peter Guthrie Tait Road > Edinburgh > EH9 3FD > T: +44(0)131 651 3465 > E: dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk > > *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] [Mpi-forum] Text issues with MPI-3.1 point-to-point chapter as at revision r2030
by Daniel Holmes 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

Hi Bill, Oh ok, I see now - those variables are of type INTEGER continued from the previous line of code. As this sort of continuation should be more indented then the formatting is fine in the new document for these two lines. Cheers, Dan. On 04/03/2015 11:55, William Gropp wrote: > Whatï¿½s incorrect? The style for the binding is that the continuation > lines should be indented. There were many inconsistencies in prior > versions and Iï¿½ve tried to find and fix these (Iï¿½ve missed some, > including new ones such as p 79, line 32, which is in fact incorrectly > indented). > > Bill > > On Mar 4, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> page 79 line 42: white space indenting is incorrect >> >> page 80 line 33: white space indenting is incorrect > -- Dan Holmes Applications Consultant in HPC Research EPCC, The University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building The Kings Buildings Peter Guthrie Tait Road Edinburgh EH9 3FD T: +44(0)131 651 3465 E: dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] [Mpi-forum] Text issues with MPI-3.1 point-to-point chapter as at revision r2030
by William Gropp 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

What’s incorrect? The style for the binding is that the continuation lines should be indented. There were many inconsistencies in prior versions and I’ve tried to find and fix these (I’ve missed some, including new ones such as p 79, line 32, which is in fact incorrectly indented). Bill On Mar 4, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > page 79 line 42: white space indenting is incorrect > > page 80 line 33: white space indenting is incorrect

1 0

Text issues with MPI-3.1 point-to-point chapter as at revision r2030
by Daniel Holmes 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

Hi all, I have compared the MPI-3.1 r2030 draft document with the MPI-3.0 document (for the point to point chapter only) and discovered the following text issues: page 26 line 44: includes "on page 658 and 666" (other page references have been removed) page 29 line 36: spurious comma between close brace and union symbol (same in MPI 3.0, suggested ticket-0 change) page 31 line 28: why does "source" wrap when there is space on the previous line? (same in MPI 3.0, suggested ticket-0 change) page 60 line 22: white space indenting is incorrect page 61 line 11: white space indenting has changed, looks incorrect now page 62 line 13: white space indenting is incorrect page 78 line 4: white space change - was it intentional to incorporate the sequence into the paragraph? page 79 line 42: white space indenting is incorrect page 80 line 33: white space indenting is incorrect Cheers, Dan. -- Dan Holmes Applications Consultant in HPC Research EPCC, The University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building The Kings Buildings Peter Guthrie Tait Road Edinburgh EH9 3FD T: +44(0)131 651 3465 E: dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0