Hi Jim,
Yes, that was (and still is!) the intention. I haven't yet created a
branch in SVN for the new version of the standard and that's the first
step toward getting the text more prepared than we already have it. We
are sufficiently close to something we could read that it would be a
shame to miss the June deadline. I will attempt to find some time this
week to work on this.
Cheers,
Dan.
On 27/04/2015 16:43, Jim Dinan wrote:
> Dan,
>
> At the last meeting, we came up with a proposal to allow info to be
> used for assertions. Should we work on pulling that together as a
> formal proposal, to read in June?
>
> ~Jim.
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am cancelling the point-to-point teleconference today because I
> have not had time to progress the work on communicator assertions
> since last time and I am not aware of any other ongoing work for
> us to talk about.
>
> Looking forward to figure out when the next meeting will take
> place, I won't be available for the next two teleconferences due
> to travelling. This means that the next meeting date would be 25th
> May, i.e. one week before the face-to-face meeting in Chicago.
>
> I will send out a reminder nearer the time and will communicate
> any progress in the interim via email.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan.
>
> On 13/04/2015 10:32, Daniel Holmes wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The next point-to-point teleconference will be today, Monday 13th
>> April 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:
>> 0) Discuss/agree the to-do list (see below) that covers the next
>> two agenda items.
>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> 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 <tel:%2B44%280%29131%20651%203465>
>> E:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
>
> --
> 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 <tel:%2B44%280%29131%20651%203465>
> E:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-p2p mailing list
> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-p2p
>
>
--
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.
Dan,
At the last meeting, we came up with a proposal to allow info to be used
for assertions. Should we work on pulling that together as a formal
proposal, to read in June?
~Jim.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am cancelling the point-to-point teleconference today because I have not
> had time to progress the work on communicator assertions since last time
> and I am not aware of any other ongoing work for us to talk about.
>
> Looking forward to figure out when the next meeting will take place, I
> won't be available for the next two teleconferences due to travelling. This
> means that the next meeting date would be 25th May, i.e. one week before
> the face-to-face meeting in Chicago.
>
> I will send out a reminder nearer the time and will communicate any
> progress in the interim via email.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan.
>
> On 13/04/2015 10:32, Daniel Holmes wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The next point-to-point teleconference will be today, Monday 13th April
> 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:
> 0) Discuss/agree the to-do list (see below) that covers the next two
> agenda items.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.*
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-p2p mailing list
> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-p2p
>
Hi All,
I am cancelling the point-to-point teleconference today because I have
not had time to progress the work on communicator assertions since last
time and I am not aware of any other ongoing work for us to talk about.
Looking forward to figure out when the next meeting will take place, I
won't be available for the next two teleconferences due to travelling.
This means that the next meeting date would be 25th May, i.e. one week
before the face-to-face meeting in Chicago.
I will send out a reminder nearer the time and will communicate any
progress in the interim via email.
Cheers,
Dan.
On 13/04/2015 10:32, Daniel Holmes wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The next point-to-point teleconference will be today, Monday 13th
> April 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:
> 0) Discuss/agree the to-do list (see below) that covers the next two
> agenda items.
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> --
> 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:[email protected]
>
> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
--
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.
i am working on SC15 papers and will not attend.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The next point-to-point teleconference will be today, Monday 13th April 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:
> 0) Discuss/agree the to-do list (see below) that covers the next two agenda
> items.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-p2p mailing list
> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-p2p
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science(a)gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
Hi All,
The next point-to-point teleconference will be today, Monday 13th April
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:
0) Discuss/agree the to-do list (see below) that covers the next two
agenda items.
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.
> 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.
--
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.
