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

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Jeff Hammond 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Actually, it has to be required in the literal sense. Fsend frees memory. Has to know which allocator used. MPI_Alloc_mem is the only one MPI knows about. Same in reverse for Arecv and MPI_Free_mem. How else can you do it? We could register callbacks for memory allocator but that will almost certainly prevent every useful optimization. Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:57 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > “required” is possibly too strong. “advisable” would be closer to my expectation. “needed in order for MPI to enable all possible optimisations” is more wordy/precise. > > Cheers, > Dan. > >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:55, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> No. MPI_Alloc_mem and MPI_Free_mem were going to be required. At least that was my plan. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Did we previously look at using MPI_Buffer_attach as a way to support allocate-and-recv? >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi Jim, et al, >>>> > >>>> > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). >>>> > >>>> > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. >>>> > >>>> > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > Dan. >>>> > >>>> >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi All, >>>> >> >>>> >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. >>>> >> >>>> >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. >>>> >> >>>> >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. >>>> >> >>>> >> Cheers, >>>> >> ~Jim. >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >>>> >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > 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 >>>> > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >>>> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >>> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > > 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 > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Jeff Hammond 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Yeah it's required in the same sense it is for RMA ;-) Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:57 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > “required” is possibly too strong. “advisable” would be closer to my expectation. “needed in order for MPI to enable all possible optimisations” is more wordy/precise. > > Cheers, > Dan. > >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:55, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> No. MPI_Alloc_mem and MPI_Free_mem were going to be required. At least that was my plan. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Did we previously look at using MPI_Buffer_attach as a way to support allocate-and-recv? >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi Jim, et al, >>>> > >>>> > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). >>>> > >>>> > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. >>>> > >>>> > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > Dan. >>>> > >>>> >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi All, >>>> >> >>>> >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. >>>> >> >>>> >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. >>>> >> >>>> >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. >>>> >> >>>> >> Cheers, >>>> >> ~Jim. >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >>>> >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > 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 >>>> > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >>>> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >>> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > > 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 > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Dan Holmes 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

“required” is possibly too strong. “advisable” would be closer to my expectation. “needed in order for MPI to enable all possible optimisations” is more wordy/precise. Cheers, Dan. > On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:55, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No. MPI_Alloc_mem and MPI_Free_mem were going to be required. At least that was my plan. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Did we previously look at using MPI_Buffer_attach as a way to support allocate-and-recv? >> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Jim, et al, >> > >> > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). >> > >> > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. >> > >> > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Dan. >> > >> >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. >> >> >> >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. >> >> >> >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~Jim. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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]> >> > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p>_______________________________________________ > mpiwg-p2p mailing list > mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Jeff Hammond 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

No. MPI_Alloc_mem and MPI_Free_mem were going to be required. At least that was my plan. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Did we previously look at using MPI_Buffer_attach as a way to support allocate-and-recv? > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Jim, et al, >> > >> > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). >> > >> > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. >> > >> > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Dan. >> > >> >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. >> >> >> >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. >> >> >> >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~Jim. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-p2p mailing list > mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Dan Holmes 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

No. Or, at least, I don’t remember doing do. How would that work? Not via MPI_Bsend, because that explicitly copies into the attached buffer memory and MPI_Fsend is aimed at avoiding all copies. Cheers, Dan. > On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:51, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Did we previously look at using MPI_Buffer_attach as a way to support allocate-and-recv? > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi Jim, et al, > > > > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). > > > > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. > > > > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. > > > > Cheers, > > Dan. > > > >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. > >> > >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. > >> > >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> ~Jim. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list > >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p> > > > > > > -- > > 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]> > > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p> > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-p2p mailing list > mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p> > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-p2p mailing list > mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Jim Dinan 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Did we previously look at using MPI_Buffer_attach as a way to support allocate-and-recv? On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, > since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any > progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Hi Jim, et al, > > > > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and > Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). > > > > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting > something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. > > > > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. > > > > Cheers, > > Dan. > > > >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's > anything to discuss on this topic this week. > >> > >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they > are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of > the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, > it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to > move forward into voting. > >> > >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can > cancel today's meeting. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> ~Jim. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list > >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-p2p mailing list > mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Jeff Hammond 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

I'm on vacation but I endorse other people doing stuff with Fsend-Arecv, since the slacker who owned it for the past two years hasn't made any progress. I think I copied all the relevant content to GitHub already. Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Dan Holmes <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hi Jim, et al, > > I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). > > I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. > > I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. > > Cheers, > Dan. > >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. >> >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. >> >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. >> >> Cheers, >> ~Jim. >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > > > -- > 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 > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Dan Holmes 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Hi Jim, et al, I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. Cheers, Dan. > On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. >> >> Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. >> >> Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. >> >> Cheers, >> ~Jim. >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-p2p mailing list >> mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-p2p] Meeting Today?
by Dan Holmes 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Hi Jim, et al, I was hoping to move the WG on to talking about Freeing-Send and Allocating-Receive (Fsend & Arecv). I’d like to re-boot and refresh caches on that with a goal of presenting something (probably informally) next face-to-face meeting in June. I’ll start the call and see how many turn up. Cheers, Dan. > On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:28, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. > > Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. > > Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. > > Cheers, > ~Jim. > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-p2p mailing list > mpiwg-p2p(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-p2p -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Meeting Today?
by Jim Dinan 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Hi All, The info query proposal seems to be converging. I don't think there's anything to discuss on this topic this week. Current status is that Pavan will check with vendors to make sure they are ok with updating MPICH to report the user's info key value instead of the effective value being used by the implementation. Assuming this is ok, it sounds like the proposal that was read at the last meeting is ready to move forward into voting. Are there any other topics for discussion? If not, I think we can cancel today's meeting. Cheers, ~Jim.

1 0