August 2019 - mpiwg-persistence - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Unused persistent collectives info keys in Annex
by HOLMES Daniel 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

Hi Wesley, In which case, the new info key that we want in connection with persistent collectives (#83) is either an errata for an as-yet-unreleased version of the MPI Standard (except, perhaps, it could fix the SC18Draft version, which was kinda published) OR it has already missed the MPI-4.0 deadline. I would prefer that we follow the errata procedure (reading in Dec, only-vote in 2020Q1) and write the change-log for it as a tweak to the existing MPI-4.0 change-log entry for persistent collectives - as if the info key ticket had always been part of the main persistent collectives ticket. Note that removing the spurious info keys in the Annex could be a ticket-0/chapter committee tidy-up of the chapter, which can be done any time without formal approval by the Forum at large. 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 29 Aug 2019, at 21:10, Wesley Bland <work(a)wesbland.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: According to our plan, this was the last meeting at which new proposals could be read in order to make that deadline. I’d be very hesitant to add yet another proposal type beyond our current three (normal, errata, no-no) in order to rush things in. On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:01 AM, HOLMES Daniel via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Martin, Procedurally, do we have enough time (that is, enough face-to-face meetings) to read a full proposal and get both the 1st vote and the 2nd vote done before the deadline imposed by our intention to release MPI-4.0 at SC20 which requires prior ratification of a release candidate? Note that #83 is not on the agenda for Zurich. The errata procedure only requires one formal vote, which shaves off one face-to-face meeting from the critical path (vs. the full proposal procedure) - although I agree it is a little unclear which version is being corrected. Using errata for new functionality suggests misuse of the “correct a small mistake” procedure as a “short-circuit for a small addition” procedure. OTOH, maybe we should innovate and approve such a “small addition” procedure? Maybe some changes need two formal votes but others only need one? Could we introduce a no-no-vote type of approval-by-acclamation at the end of the formal reading meeting to decide whether the proposal just read is “small” (needs one vote) or not (needs two votes)? Alternatively, perhaps the rules could permit 2nd votes at the start of the release candidate meeting, with the thing-to-be-gone-through-page-by-page being affected by the result(s) of that voting block with a short intermission while the document editor merges the successful pull requests (or a longer intermission if there are any merge conflicts that need fixing)? 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 29 Aug 2019, at 14:11, Martin Schulz via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Tony, all, I hope I fully followed this :) Doing an errata item seems a bit backwards to me, as we haven’t published the standard, yet. Also, removing it and then re-adding it with 83 seems odd. What about just removing the two keys that are not needed with 83 through the no/no process? Wouldn’t that be all that is needed? Martin — Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de<mailto:[email protected]> On 29. Aug 2019, at 12:31, Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, thank you... we will issue an appropriate change to remove these... they are not part of ticket #25 as approved...and so we must issue an erratum on ticket #25. They split off into ticket #83 in March, 2018. We itrerated multiple times on having or not having these info keys as part of ticket #25 and we must have missed removing completely. Such info keys are part of a second viable ticket we that we split out are still working on ... none belong in the standard yet. The first key value is part of ticket 83 as of now... which will get a no no plus vote in December (it had its reading priorly), introducing the first key... since acceptance is anticipated. Only examples for this ticket need to be fixed. Plus now evidently Annex 1.5 :-) too. The second and third key values are currently part of no proposed ticket. They are vestigial. So, our plan is to remove all mention of them with appropriate process and then watch for the passage of 83. :-) I will make sure that no no vote ticket for 83 also includes adding the first key to the Annex 1.5. I will ask Bill Gropp and Martin Schulz for advice on fixing this. They are cc’d. Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Joseph Schuchart <schuchart(a)hlrs.de<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tony, I just rebased my MPI PR to the MPI 4.x branch. Looking at the info keys, I found that there are info keys in Annex A.1.5 that stem from the persistent collectives chapter but the text mentioning them was commented out there (git blame mentions you as the last author of that part). It seems that the info keys in the annex are a relic of this text. The keys in question are: mpi_assert_strict_start_ordering mpi_optimization_goal mpi_reuse_count Are you planning to revive these keys or should they be removed? Best regards, Joseph -- Dipl.-Inf. Joseph Schuchart High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) Nobelstr. 19 D-70569 Stuttgart Tel.: +49(0)711-68565890 Fax: +49(0)711-6856832 E-Mail: schuchart(a)hlrs.de<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Unused persistent collectives info keys in Annex
by Wesley Bland 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

According to our plan, this was the last meeting at which new proposals could be read in order to make that deadline. I’d be very hesitant to add yet another proposal type beyond our current three (normal, errata, no-no) in order to rush things in. > On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:01 AM, HOLMES Daniel via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Procedurally, do we have enough time (that is, enough face-to-face meetings) to read a full proposal and get both the 1st vote and the 2nd vote done before the deadline imposed by our intention to release MPI-4.0 at SC20 which requires prior ratification of a release candidate? Note that #83 is not on the agenda for Zurich. > > The errata procedure only requires one formal vote, which shaves off one face-to-face meeting from the critical path (vs. the full proposal procedure) - although I agree it is a little unclear which version is being corrected. Using errata for new functionality suggests misuse of the “correct a small mistake” procedure as a “short-circuit for a small addition” procedure. > > OTOH, maybe we should innovate and approve such a “small addition” procedure? Maybe some changes need two formal votes but others only need one? Could we introduce a no-no-vote type of approval-by-acclamation at the end of the formal reading meeting to decide whether the proposal just read is “small” (needs one vote) or not (needs two votes)? > > Alternatively, perhaps the rules could permit 2nd votes at the start of the release candidate meeting, with the thing-to-be-gone-through-page-by-page being affected by the result(s) of that voting block with a short intermission while the document editor merges the successful pull requests (or a longer intermission if there are any merge conflicts that need fixing)? > > 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 29 Aug 2019, at 14:11, Martin Schulz via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Tony, all, >> >> I hope I fully followed this :) >> >> Doing an errata item seems a bit backwards to me, as we haven’t published the standard, yet. Also, removing it and then re-adding it with 83 seems odd. What about just removing the two keys that are not needed with 83 through the no/no process? Wouldn’t that be all that is needed? >> >> Martin >> >> >> — >> Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems >> Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching >> Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) >> Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 29. Aug 2019, at 12:31, Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, thank you... we will issue an appropriate change to remove these... they are not part of ticket #25 as approved...and so we must issue an erratum on ticket #25. They split off into ticket #83 in March, 2018. >>> >>> We itrerated multiple times on having or not having these info keys as part of ticket #25 and we must have missed removing completely. >>> >>> Such info keys are part of a second viable ticket we that we split out are still working on ... none belong in the standard yet. The first key value is part of ticket 83 as of now... >>> which will get a no no plus vote in December (it had its reading priorly), introducing the first key... since acceptance is anticipated. Only examples for this ticket need to be fixed. Plus now evidently Annex 1.5 :-) too. >>> >>> The second and third key values are currently part of no proposed ticket. >>> They are vestigial. >>> >>> So, our plan is to remove all mention of them with appropriate process and then watch for the passage of 83. :-) >>> >>> I will make sure that no no vote ticket for 83 also includes adding the first key to the Annex 1.5. >>> >>> I will ask Bill Gropp and Martin Schulz for advice on fixing this. They are cc’d. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> Anthony Skjellum, PhD >>> 205-807-4968 >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Joseph Schuchart <schuchart(a)hlrs.de <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Tony, >>>> >>>> I just rebased my MPI PR to the MPI 4.x branch. Looking at the info keys, I found that there are info keys in Annex A.1.5 that stem from the persistent collectives chapter but the text mentioning them was commented out there (git blame mentions you as the last author of that part). It seems that the info keys in the annex are a relic of this text. The keys in question are: >>>> >>>> mpi_assert_strict_start_ordering >>>> mpi_optimization_goal >>>> mpi_reuse_count >>>> >>>> Are you planning to revive these keys or should they be removed? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Joseph >>>> -- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Joseph Schuchart >>>> High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) >>>> Nobelstr. 19 >>>> D-70569 Stuttgart >>>> >>>> Tel.: +49(0)711-68565890 >>>> Fax: +49(0)711-6856832 >>>> E-Mail: schuchart(a)hlrs.de <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-persistence mailing list >> mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-persistence mailing list > mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Unused persistent collectives info keys in Annex
by HOLMES Daniel 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

Hi Martin, Procedurally, do we have enough time (that is, enough face-to-face meetings) to read a full proposal and get both the 1st vote and the 2nd vote done before the deadline imposed by our intention to release MPI-4.0 at SC20 which requires prior ratification of a release candidate? Note that #83 is not on the agenda for Zurich. The errata procedure only requires one formal vote, which shaves off one face-to-face meeting from the critical path (vs. the full proposal procedure) - although I agree it is a little unclear which version is being corrected. Using errata for new functionality suggests misuse of the “correct a small mistake” procedure as a “short-circuit for a small addition” procedure. OTOH, maybe we should innovate and approve such a “small addition” procedure? Maybe some changes need two formal votes but others only need one? Could we introduce a no-no-vote type of approval-by-acclamation at the end of the formal reading meeting to decide whether the proposal just read is “small” (needs one vote) or not (needs two votes)? Alternatively, perhaps the rules could permit 2nd votes at the start of the release candidate meeting, with the thing-to-be-gone-through-page-by-page being affected by the result(s) of that voting block with a short intermission while the document editor merges the successful pull requests (or a longer intermission if there are any merge conflicts that need fixing)? 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 29 Aug 2019, at 14:11, Martin Schulz via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Tony, all, I hope I fully followed this :) Doing an errata item seems a bit backwards to me, as we haven’t published the standard, yet. Also, removing it and then re-adding it with 83 seems odd. What about just removing the two keys that are not needed with 83 through the no/no process? Wouldn’t that be all that is needed? Martin — Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de<mailto:[email protected]> On 29. Aug 2019, at 12:31, Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, thank you... we will issue an appropriate change to remove these... they are not part of ticket #25 as approved...and so we must issue an erratum on ticket #25. They split off into ticket #83 in March, 2018. We itrerated multiple times on having or not having these info keys as part of ticket #25 and we must have missed removing completely. Such info keys are part of a second viable ticket we that we split out are still working on ... none belong in the standard yet. The first key value is part of ticket 83 as of now... which will get a no no plus vote in December (it had its reading priorly), introducing the first key... since acceptance is anticipated. Only examples for this ticket need to be fixed. Plus now evidently Annex 1.5 :-) too. The second and third key values are currently part of no proposed ticket. They are vestigial. So, our plan is to remove all mention of them with appropriate process and then watch for the passage of 83. :-) I will make sure that no no vote ticket for 83 also includes adding the first key to the Annex 1.5. I will ask Bill Gropp and Martin Schulz for advice on fixing this. They are cc’d. Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Joseph Schuchart <schuchart(a)hlrs.de<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tony, I just rebased my MPI PR to the MPI 4.x branch. Looking at the info keys, I found that there are info keys in Annex A.1.5 that stem from the persistent collectives chapter but the text mentioning them was commented out there (git blame mentions you as the last author of that part). It seems that the info keys in the annex are a relic of this text. The keys in question are: mpi_assert_strict_start_ordering mpi_optimization_goal mpi_reuse_count Are you planning to revive these keys or should they be removed? Best regards, Joseph -- Dipl.-Inf. Joseph Schuchart High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) Nobelstr. 19 D-70569 Stuttgart Tel.: +49(0)711-68565890 Fax: +49(0)711-6856832 E-Mail: schuchart(a)hlrs.de<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Unused persistent collectives info keys in Annex
by schulzm＠in.tum.de 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

Hi Tony, all, I hope I fully followed this :) Doing an errata item seems a bit backwards to me, as we haven’t published the standard, yet. Also, removing it and then re-adding it with 83 seems odd. What about just removing the two keys that are not needed with 83 through the no/no process? Wouldn’t that be all that is needed? Martin — Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de > On 29. Aug 2019, at 12:31, Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu> wrote: > > Hi, thank you... we will issue an appropriate change to remove these... they are not part of ticket #25 as approved...and so we must issue an erratum on ticket #25. They split off into ticket #83 in March, 2018. > > We itrerated multiple times on having or not having these info keys as part of ticket #25 and we must have missed removing completely. > > Such info keys are part of a second viable ticket we that we split out are still working on ... none belong in the standard yet. The first key value is part of ticket 83 as of now... > which will get a no no plus vote in December (it had its reading priorly), introducing the first key... since acceptance is anticipated. Only examples for this ticket need to be fixed. Plus now evidently Annex 1.5 :-) too. > > The second and third key values are currently part of no proposed ticket. > They are vestigial. > > So, our plan is to remove all mention of them with appropriate process and then watch for the passage of 83. :-) > > I will make sure that no no vote ticket for 83 also includes adding the first key to the Annex 1.5. > > I will ask Bill Gropp and Martin Schulz for advice on fixing this. They are cc’d. > > Tony > > Anthony Skjellum, PhD > 205-807-4968 > > >> On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Joseph Schuchart <schuchart(a)hlrs.de> wrote: >> >> Tony, >> >> I just rebased my MPI PR to the MPI 4.x branch. Looking at the info keys, I found that there are info keys in Annex A.1.5 that stem from the persistent collectives chapter but the text mentioning them was commented out there (git blame mentions you as the last author of that part). It seems that the info keys in the annex are a relic of this text. The keys in question are: >> >> mpi_assert_strict_start_ordering >> mpi_optimization_goal >> mpi_reuse_count >> >> Are you planning to revive these keys or should they be removed? >> >> Best regards, >> Joseph >> -- >> Dipl.-Inf. Joseph Schuchart >> High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) >> Nobelstr. 19 >> D-70569 Stuttgart >> >> Tel.: +49(0)711-68565890 >> Fax: +49(0)711-6856832 >> E-Mail: schuchart(a)hlrs.de

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Unused persistent collectives info keys in Annex
by Skjellum, Anthony 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

Hi, thank you... we will issue an appropriate change to remove these... they are not part of ticket #25 as approved...and so we must issue an erratum on ticket #25. They split off into ticket #83 in March, 2018. We itrerated multiple times on having or not having these info keys as part of ticket #25 and we must have missed removing completely. Such info keys are part of a second viable ticket we that we split out are still working on ... none belong in the standard yet. The first key value is part of ticket 83 as of now... which will get a no no plus vote in December (it had its reading priorly), introducing the first key... since acceptance is anticipated. Only examples for this ticket need to be fixed. Plus now evidently Annex 1.5 :-) too. The second and third key values are currently part of no proposed ticket. They are vestigial. So, our plan is to remove all mention of them with appropriate process and then watch for the passage of 83. :-) I will make sure that no no vote ticket for 83 also includes adding the first key to the Annex 1.5. I will ask Bill Gropp and Martin Schulz for advice on fixing this. They are cc’d. Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 > On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Joseph Schuchart <schuchart(a)hlrs.de> wrote: > > Tony, > > I just rebased my MPI PR to the MPI 4.x branch. Looking at the info keys, I found that there are info keys in Annex A.1.5 that stem from the persistent collectives chapter but the text mentioning them was commented out there (git blame mentions you as the last author of that part). It seems that the info keys in the annex are a relic of this text. The keys in question are: > > mpi_assert_strict_start_ordering > mpi_optimization_goal > mpi_reuse_count > > Are you planning to revive these keys or should they be removed? > > Best regards, > Joseph > -- > Dipl.-Inf. Joseph Schuchart > High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) > Nobelstr. 19 > D-70569 Stuttgart > > Tel.: +49(0)711-68565890 > Fax: +49(0)711-6856832 > E-Mail: schuchart(a)hlrs.de

1 0

Meeting today at 10 am eastern time
by Skjellum, Anthony 21 Aug '19

21 Aug '19

Hi, we are meeting today with this agenda item: — review partitioned communication proposal and ticket The info key ticket is not yet ready (sorry). Talk to you all soon. Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968

1 0

Canceled: MPI Persistent/Collective WGs Weekly Meeting
by Skjellum, Anthony 17 Aug '19

17 Aug '19

We will skip this since overlapping with MPI Forum in Zurich.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Meeting today
by Skjellum, Anthony 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

That's no problem 🙂 Your discussion points will come up next week too 🙂 Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor of Computer Science and Chair of Excellence Director, SimCenter University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu [or skjellum(a)gmail.com] cell: 205-807-4968 ________________________________ From: Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:12 AM To: Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu>; mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Cc: Grant, Ryan Eric (-EXP) <regrant(a)sandia.gov> Subject: Re: Meeting today I am flying today, so will not be able to make this call. I will plan on joining the next call. Rich Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Skjellum, Anthony" <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu> Date: 8/7/19 03:42 (GMT-08:00) To: mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Cc: "Grant, Ryan Eric (-EXP)" <regrant(a)sandia.gov>, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> Subject: Meeting today Hi, we will meet today to discuss 0) Remind ourselves about the Info key ticket and what needs to be done for September (what I owe, and any help available) 1) Open issues for persistent collective communication 2) Partitioned point-to-point proposal/ticket 3) On-going discussion of making initialization functions local for persistent collectives, how that impacts other parts of the standard (Dan/Tony/Rolf thread of discussion in past that's been renewed lately) 4) Rich Graham's idea(s) for possibly changing base addresses in persistent collectives without a new initialization ; INFO key? there are strong implications on optimization from this degree of freedom. [If Rich can't make the call, we will just skim the surface and continue this when he can join.] Anything else? Thanks, Tony Skjellum Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor of Computer Science and Chair of Excellence Director, SimCenter University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu [or skjellum(a)gmail.com] cell: 205-807-4968

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Meeting today
by Richard Graham 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

I am flying today, so will not be able to make this call. I will plan on joining the next call. Rich Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Skjellum, Anthony" <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu> Date: 8/7/19 03:42 (GMT-08:00) To: mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Cc: "Grant, Ryan Eric (-EXP)" <regrant(a)sandia.gov>, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> Subject: Meeting today Hi, we will meet today to discuss 0) Remind ourselves about the Info key ticket and what needs to be done for September (what I owe, and any help available) 1) Open issues for persistent collective communication 2) Partitioned point-to-point proposal/ticket 3) On-going discussion of making initialization functions local for persistent collectives, how that impacts other parts of the standard (Dan/Tony/Rolf thread of discussion in past that's been renewed lately) 4) Rich Graham's idea(s) for possibly changing base addresses in persistent collectives without a new initialization ; INFO key? there are strong implications on optimization from this degree of freedom. [If Rich can't make the call, we will just skim the surface and continue this when he can join.] Anything else? Thanks, Tony Skjellum Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor of Computer Science and Chair of Excellence Director, SimCenter University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu [or skjellum(a)gmail.com] cell: 205-807-4968

1 0

Meeting today
by Skjellum, Anthony 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

Hi, we will meet today to discuss 0) Remind ourselves about the Info key ticket and what needs to be done for September (what I owe, and any help available) 1) Open issues for persistent collective communication 2) Partitioned point-to-point proposal/ticket 3) On-going discussion of making initialization functions local for persistent collectives, how that impacts other parts of the standard (Dan/Tony/Rolf thread of discussion in past that's been renewed lately) 4) Rich Graham's idea(s) for possibly changing base addresses in persistent collectives without a new initialization ; INFO key? there are strong implications on optimization from this degree of freedom. [If Rich can't make the call, we will just skim the surface and continue this when he can join.] Anything else? Thanks, Tony Skjellum Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor of Computer Science and Chair of Excellence Director, SimCenter University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu [or skjellum(a)gmail.com] cell: 205-807-4968

1 0