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

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Update [ RESEND ]
by Skjellum, Anthony 26 Sep '18

26 Sep '18

________________________________ From: Skjellum, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:08 AM To: mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org; mpiwg-collective(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: Update Hi. the weekly 10:30am Eastern meeting today (Wednesday) is canceled. If you are not on the invite list for future meetings, please let me know. I'll add you to the calendar invite. Collective/Persistent meet (almost every) Wednesday. Significantly, Ticket #25 (Persistent Collective Communication) [PR #29], passed its second vote and is now in MPI-4.0. It has been merged and the mpi-3.x branch of the MPI Standard includes these changes as of now. We have work to do on info args missing across the API, _X type APIs from Big MPI, and the assertion for in-ordered. This ticket was read but not accepted as is with good feedback. Please open https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-persistence https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-collectives [https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/14836989?s=400&v=4]<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-collectives> mpi-forum/mpi-issues<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-collectives> github.com Tickets for the MPI Forum. Contribute to mpi-forum/mpi-issues development by creating an account on GitHub. Next week we will be discussing Persistent and Collective tickets. It is also an opportunity to bring up new ideas of course. Thank you, Tony 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: HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:48 AM To: Skjellum, Anthony Subject: Re: Declined: MPI Persistent/Collective WGs Weekly Meeting Hi Tony, This should also be sent to the email lists: MPI WG Persistence working group <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> MPI WG Collective working group <mpiwg-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Cheers, Dan. — Dr Daniel Holmes PhD Applications Consultant in 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 26 Sep 2018, at 07:42, Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We are at the conf — I think we will skip today Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 On Sep 24, 2018, at 4:06 PM, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: <meeting.ics>

1 0

Update
by Skjellum, Anthony 26 Sep '18

26 Sep '18

Hi. the weekly 10:30am Eastern meeting today (Wednesday) is canceled. If you are not on the invite list for future meetings, please let me know. I'll add you to the calendar invite. Collective/Persistent meet (almost every) Wednesday. Significantly, Ticket #25 (Persistent Collective Communication) [PR #29], passed its second vote and is now in MPI-4.0. It has been merged and the mpi-3.x branch of the MPI Standard includes these changes as of now. We have work to do on info args missing across the API, _X type APIs from Big MPI, and the assertion for in-ordered. This ticket was read but not accepted as is with good feedback. Please open https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-persistence https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-collectives [https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/14836989?s=400&v=4]<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-collectives> mpi-forum/mpi-issues<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/labels/wg-collectives> github.com Tickets for the MPI Forum. Contribute to mpi-forum/mpi-issues development by creating an account on GitHub. Next week we will be discussing Persistent and Collective tickets. It is also an opportunity to bring up new ideas of course. Thank you, Tony 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: HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:48 AM To: Skjellum, Anthony Subject: Re: Declined: MPI Persistent/Collective WGs Weekly Meeting Hi Tony, This should also be sent to the email lists: MPI WG Persistence working group <mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> MPI WG Collective working group <mpiwg-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Cheers, Dan. — Dr Daniel Holmes PhD Applications Consultant in 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 26 Sep 2018, at 07:42, Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We are at the conf — I think we will skip today Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 On Sep 24, 2018, at 4:06 PM, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: <meeting.ics>

1 0

Meeting Wednesday - cancel May 30, meet June 6
by Anthony Skjellum 29 May '18

29 May '18

Hi all, Please review al the tickets posted for the Austin meeting. We will meet on June 6 at the normal time, but not on May 30. All of us have many deadlines tomorrow! We will preview June Austin meeting at our June 6 WG meeting. Tony -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD skjellum(a)gmail.com Cell: +1-205-807-4968

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Reminder: MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting
by Anthony Skjellum 24 Apr '18

24 Apr '18

Hi, there will be no WG meeting on Wednesday, 4/25. Tony On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:36 AM, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Puri, > > Apparently, our regular meeting has expired in GTM! > > I sent a “Meet now” link to the persistent WG email list. > > Apologies. > > Cheers, > Dan. > > On 18 Apr 2018, at 15:34, Bangalore, Purushotham <puri(a)uab.edu> wrote: > > > I am getting a message that the meeting is is invalid. > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* "Bangalore, Purushotham" <puri(a)uab.edu> > *Date:* April 18, 2018 at 9:00:26 AM CDT > *To:* "Bangalore, Purushotham" <puri(a)uab.edu> > *Subject:* *Reminder: MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting* > > <agenda_icon.png> > Your reminder for MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting > Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. > https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/357844797 You can also dial in using > your phone. United States: +1 (786) 535-3119 Access Code: 357-844-797 More > phone numbers France: +33 170 950 590 United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0097 > First GoToMeeting? Let's do a quick system check: https://link. > gotomeeting.com/system-check > > <calendar_icon.png> > 4/18/2018 > <clock_icon.png> > 9:30 AM - 10:30 AM > > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-persistence mailing list > mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence > > -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD skjellum(a)gmail.com Cell: +1-205-807-4968

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Reminder: MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting
by HOLMES Daniel 18 Apr '18

18 Apr '18

Hi Puri, Apparently, our regular meeting has expired in GTM! I sent a “Meet now” link to the persistent WG email list. Apologies. Cheers, Dan. On 18 Apr 2018, at 15:34, Bangalore, Purushotham <puri(a)uab.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am getting a message that the meeting is is invalid. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Bangalore, Purushotham" <puri(a)uab.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: April 18, 2018 at 9:00:26 AM CDT To: "Bangalore, Purushotham" <puri(a)uab.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Reminder: MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting <agenda_icon.png> Your reminder for MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/357844797 You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (786) 535-3119 Access Code: 357-844-797 More phone numbers France: +33 170 950 590 United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0097 First GoToMeeting? Let's do a quick system check: https://link.gotomeeting.com/system-check <calendar_icon.png> 4/18/2018 <clock_icon.png> 9:30 AM - 10:30 AM The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting
by HOLMES Daniel 18 Apr '18

18 Apr '18

Hi Akhil, The call details should be: Meet Now Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/246058477 You can also dial in using your phone. United Kingdom: +44 330 054 0001 Access Code: 246-058-477 More phone numbers United States: +1 (571) 317-3116 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9373 France: +33 170 950 590 Germany: +49 693 8098 999 First GoToMeeting? Let's do a quick system check: https://link.gotomeeting.com/system-check Cheers, Dan. On 18 Apr 2018, at 15:24, Langer, Akhil <akhil.langer(a)intel.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: When I click on the meeting link below, it says invalid meeting id. Can you please check. Thanks. From: "Skjellum, Anthony" <Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 9:23 AM To: "Langer, Akhil" <akhil.langer(a)intel.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting Yes Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 On Apr 18, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Langer, Akhil <akhil.langer(a)intel.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Tony,Dan, Is there a meeting today in 10 mins? Thanks, Akhil From: Tony-Skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]> When: 9:30 AM - 10:30 AM April 18, 2018 Subject: MPI Persistent/College WGs Weekly Meeting Use this to dial in: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/357844797 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29)
by Anthony Skjellum 30 Nov '17

30 Nov '17

the wording seems OK to me Anthony Skjellum, PhD Affiliate Faculty, Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn University 205-807-4968 (cell) Preferred e-mails for me are skjellum(a)gmail.com or tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu ________________________________ From: mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:18 AM To: MPI WG Persistence working Group Cc: Martin Schulz; Anthony Skjellum Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Hi all, I’ve just pushed this text change as is to the Persistence WG github - so it is now included on our pull request. Do we wish to word-smith the exact phraseology at all? I’m happy with it as is, but I can easily make a wording change if we decide that’s needed or wanted. Once we have WG sign-off on the wording, I’ll rebuild the PDF. Cheers, Dan. On 30 Nov 2017, at 01:43, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)auburn.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Martin, OK, thank you. That makes perfect sense.-Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD Affiliate Faculty, Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn University 205-807-4968 (cell) Preferred e-mails for me are skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]> or tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ From: mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:04 PM To: Anthony Skjellum Cc: MPI WG Persistence working Group Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Hi Tony, On 29. Nov 2017, at 23:58, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can this be a "ticket 0" change? No, I think this is clearly more than a ticket 0 change, but as Dan suggested, it should pass the no/no vote test. Martin On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: Hi Dan, all, Just my personal view: the that’s how I always interpreted the statement anyway, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hence, adding the clarification is IMHO a good move. Just my 2c, Martin On 29. Nov 2017, at 11:07, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Persistence WG members, We have a suggested change to the wording of the MPI Standard text that we will propose to the MPI Forum next week regarding persistent collective operations. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order +and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator Most of this sentence already appears in our proposed text - the suggestion is to add the line beginning with “+”. I think this is a good suggestion - we should make this point absolutely clear. We should word-smith the exact phrase (e.g. during the meeting later today?) and then include it in our formal reading next week by holding a “no-no” vote. Cheers, Dan. Begin forwarded message: From: KAWASHIMA Takahiro <notifications(a)github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Date: 29 November 2017 at 06:09:20 GMT To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <mpi-standard(a)noreply.github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Dan Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>>, Mention <mention(a)noreply.github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755(a)reply.github.com<mailto:reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755@reply.github.com>> @dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk<https://github.com/dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk>, With the existing text, I think many people can understand that it is saying (at least) "requests can be started using MPI_START or MPI_STARTALL in any order independently of initialization order", because of analogy to the point-to-point communication. So I think your suggested text is unnecessary. But some people may not understand that it is also saying "the order of starting requests can differ among ranks in the communicator", because (1) the matching rule for persistent collective operations is different from the matching rule for point-to-point communication so that analogy to the point-to-point communication is not applied and (2) the order of nonblocking collective calls must be same among ranks in the communicator. How about the sentence below? I'm not good at English. Please correct it if it is not good. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator If anyone else thinks the existing text is sufficient, I won't request the change. Probably my English reading skill is low. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/29#issuecomment-347762876>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMf8SiG0KfwGmYxNhaFoTBv_J…>. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]> Cell: +1-205-807-4968 _______________________________________________ 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] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29)
by HOLMES Daniel 30 Nov '17

30 Nov '17

Hi all, I’ve just pushed this text change as is to the Persistence WG github - so it is now included on our pull request. Do we wish to word-smith the exact phraseology at all? I’m happy with it as is, but I can easily make a wording change if we decide that’s needed or wanted. Once we have WG sign-off on the wording, I’ll rebuild the PDF. Cheers, Dan. On 30 Nov 2017, at 01:43, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)auburn.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Martin, OK, thank you. That makes perfect sense.-Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD Affiliate Faculty, Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn University 205-807-4968 (cell) Preferred e-mails for me are skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]> or tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ From: mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:04 PM To: Anthony Skjellum Cc: MPI WG Persistence working Group Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Hi Tony, On 29. Nov 2017, at 23:58, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can this be a "ticket 0" change? No, I think this is clearly more than a ticket 0 change, but as Dan suggested, it should pass the no/no vote test. Martin On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: Hi Dan, all, Just my personal view: the that’s how I always interpreted the statement anyway, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hence, adding the clarification is IMHO a good move. Just my 2c, Martin On 29. Nov 2017, at 11:07, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Persistence WG members, We have a suggested change to the wording of the MPI Standard text that we will propose to the MPI Forum next week regarding persistent collective operations. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order +and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator Most of this sentence already appears in our proposed text - the suggestion is to add the line beginning with “+”. I think this is a good suggestion - we should make this point absolutely clear. We should word-smith the exact phrase (e.g. during the meeting later today?) and then include it in our formal reading next week by holding a “no-no” vote. Cheers, Dan. Begin forwarded message: From: KAWASHIMA Takahiro <notifications(a)github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Date: 29 November 2017 at 06:09:20 GMT To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <mpi-standard(a)noreply.github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Dan Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>>, Mention <mention(a)noreply.github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755(a)reply.github.com<mailto:reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755@reply.github.com>> @dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk<https://github.com/dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk>, With the existing text, I think many people can understand that it is saying (at least) "requests can be started using MPI_START or MPI_STARTALL in any order independently of initialization order", because of analogy to the point-to-point communication. So I think your suggested text is unnecessary. But some people may not understand that it is also saying "the order of starting requests can differ among ranks in the communicator", because (1) the matching rule for persistent collective operations is different from the matching rule for point-to-point communication so that analogy to the point-to-point communication is not applied and (2) the order of nonblocking collective calls must be same among ranks in the communicator. How about the sentence below? I'm not good at English. Please correct it if it is not good. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator If anyone else thinks the existing text is sufficient, I won't request the change. Probably my English reading skill is low. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/29#issuecomment-347762876>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMf8SiG0KfwGmYxNhaFoTBv_J…>. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]> Cell: +1-205-807-4968 _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29)
by Anthony Skjellum 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

Martin, OK, thank you. That makes perfect sense.-Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD Affiliate Faculty, Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn University 205-807-4968 (cell) Preferred e-mails for me are skjellum(a)gmail.com or tony-skjellum(a)utc.edu ________________________________ From: mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:04 PM To: Anthony Skjellum Cc: MPI WG Persistence working Group Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Hi Tony, On 29. Nov 2017, at 23:58, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can this be a "ticket 0" change? No, I think this is clearly more than a ticket 0 change, but as Dan suggested, it should pass the no/no vote test. Martin On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Dan, all, Just my personal view: the that’s how I always interpreted the statement anyway, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hence, adding the clarification is IMHO a good move. Just my 2c, Martin On 29. Nov 2017, at 11:07, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Persistence WG members, We have a suggested change to the wording of the MPI Standard text that we will propose to the MPI Forum next week regarding persistent collective operations. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order +and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator Most of this sentence already appears in our proposed text - the suggestion is to add the line beginning with “+”. I think this is a good suggestion - we should make this point absolutely clear. We should word-smith the exact phrase (e.g. during the meeting later today?) and then include it in our formal reading next week by holding a “no-no” vote. Cheers, Dan. Begin forwarded message: From: KAWASHIMA Takahiro <notifications(a)github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Date: 29 November 2017 at 06:09:20 GMT To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <mpi-standard(a)noreply.github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Dan Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>>, Mention <mention(a)noreply.github.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755(a)reply.github.com<mailto:reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755@reply.github.com>> @dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk<https://github.com/dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk>, With the existing text, I think many people can understand that it is saying (at least) "requests can be started using MPI_START or MPI_STARTALL in any order independently of initialization order", because of analogy to the point-to-point communication. So I think your suggested text is unnecessary. But some people may not understand that it is also saying "the order of starting requests can differ among ranks in the communicator", because (1) the matching rule for persistent collective operations is different from the matching rule for point-to-point communication so that analogy to the point-to-point communication is not applied and (2) the order of nonblocking collective calls must be same among ranks in the communicator. How about the sentence below? I'm not good at English. Please correct it if it is not good. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator If anyone else thinks the existing text is sufficient, I won't request the change. Probably my English reading skill is low. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/29#issuecomment-347762876>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMf8SiG0KfwGmYxNhaFoTBv_J…>. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]> Cell: +1-205-807-4968

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29)
by Martin Schulz 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

Hi Tony, > On 29. Nov 2017, at 23:58, Anthony Skjellum <skjellum(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Can this be a "ticket 0" change? No, I think this is clearly more than a ticket 0 change, but as Dan suggested, it should pass the no/no vote test. Martin > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Schulz <gu58niw(a)mytum.de <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Dan, all, > > Just my personal view: the that’s how I always interpreted the statement anyway, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hence, adding the clarification is IMHO a good move. > > Just my 2c, > > Martin > > >> On 29. Nov 2017, at 11:07, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Persistence WG members, >> >> We have a suggested change to the wording of the MPI Standard text that we will propose to the MPI Forum next week regarding persistent collective operations. >> >>> Once initialized, >>> persistent collective operations can be started in any order >>> independently of initialization order >>> +and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator >> >> Most of this sentence already appears in our proposed text - the suggestion is to add the line beginning with “+”. >> >> I think this is a good suggestion - we should make this point absolutely clear. We should word-smith the exact phrase (e.g. during the meeting later today?) and then include it in our formal reading next week by holding a “no-no” vote. >> >> Cheers, >> Dan. >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: KAWASHIMA Takahiro <notifications(a)github.com <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Subject: Re: [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) >>> Date: 29 November 2017 at 06:09:20 GMT >>> To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <mpi-standard(a)noreply.github.com <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Cc: Dan Holmes <dholmes(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]>>, Mention <mention(a)noreply.github.com <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Reply-To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755(a)reply.github.com <mailto:reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755@reply.github.com>> >>> >>> @dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk <https://github.com/dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk>, >>> With the existing text, I think many people can understand that it is saying (at least) "requests can be started using MPI_START or MPI_STARTALL in any order independently of initialization order", because of analogy to the point-to-point communication. So I think your suggested text is unnecessary. >>> But some people may not understand that it is also saying "the order of starting requests can differ among ranks in the communicator", because (1) the matching rule for persistent collective operations is different from the matching rule for point-to-point communication so that analogy to the point-to-point communication is not applied and (2) the order of nonblocking collective calls must be same among ranks in the communicator. >>> >>> How about the sentence below? I'm not good at English. Please correct it if it is not good. >>> >>> Once initialized, >>> persistent collective operations can be started in any order >>> independently of initialization order >>> and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator >>> >>> If anyone else thinks the existing text is sufficient, I won't request the change. Probably my English reading skill is low. >>> >>> — >>> You are receiving this because you were mentioned. >>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/29#issuecomment-347762876>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMf8SiG0KfwGmYxNhaFoTBv_J…>. >>> >> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-persistence mailing list >> mpiwg-persistence(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence <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 <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence> > > > > > -- > Anthony Skjellum, PhD > skjellum(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]> > Cell: +1-205-807-4968 > >

1 0