November 2014 - mpiwg-rma - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary
by William Gropp 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

Thanks. I (and someone else apparently - thanks!) have updated the agenda. Bill On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > #363 - Closed as withdrawn > #366 - Closed as withdrawn > > #401 - It would be nice to add this as errata in MPI 3.1, if the WG can reach agreement on text in time > #439 - Queued up for WG discussion as an MPI 4.0 proposal. Torsten has a competing proposal that does not have a ticket registered in Trac. I added a link to his slides on #439. > > #460 - Not on your list. This is a proposal for a new info key that was suggested by a user. Should be queued up for WG discussion. > > ~Jim. > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > I looked through all of the tickets and wrote a summary of the open issues, which I’ve attached. I propose the following: > > Determine which of these issues can be resolved by email. A significant number can probably be closed with no further action. > > For those requiring rework, determine if there is still interest in them, and if not, close them as well. > > For the ones requiring discussion, assign someone to organize a position and discussion. We can schedule telecons to go over those issues. The first item in the list is certainly in this class. > > Comments? > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary
by Jim Dinan 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

Hi Bill, #363 - Closed as withdrawn #366 - Closed as withdrawn #401 - It would be nice to add this as errata in MPI 3.1, if the WG can reach agreement on text in time #439 - Queued up for WG discussion as an MPI 4.0 proposal. Torsten has a competing proposal that does not have a ticket registered in Trac. I added a link to his slides on #439. #460 - Not on your list. This is a proposal for a new info key that was suggested by a user. Should be queued up for WG discussion. ~Jim. On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > I looked through all of the tickets and wrote a summary of the open > issues, which I’ve attached. I propose the following: > > Determine which of these issues can be resolved by email. A significant > number can probably be closed with no further action. > > For those requiring rework, determine if there is still interest in them, > and if not, close them as well. > > For the ones requiring discussion, assign someone to organize a position > and discussion. We can schedule telecons to go over those issues. The > first item in the list is certainly in this class. > > Comments? > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Jeff Hammond 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

I don't know what RMA users other than I will expect. But advice to users might be useful to, you know, advise users as to what reasonable expectations are :-) Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 12, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > So, users won't expect that the interface can remotely complete a small RMA operation such that it overtakes a previously issued large RMA operation? > >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> It seems only obvious that remote request completion only makes sense >> for large messages where individual completion makes sense. I can >> think of numerous contexts where it does, especially in the limit of >> not being able to register an infinity of pages. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I think the argument against was that can be hard to get fine-grain, >> > per-operation remote completion, and harder still to do it efficiently. So, >> > we could end up with an interface that builds a false expectation where >> > users expect overlap that many implementations can't provide. >> > >> > ~Jim. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Barrett didn't have a good argument against these functions except >> >> argument count, as I recall. There was some debate as to whether nonblocking >> >> flush was better, albeit in an apples-to-oranges way. >> >> >> >> I think most people are just frustrated with the grossness of the corner >> >> we are painted into with RMA API. Pirate RMA is the natural consequence of >> >> past decisions. The other solution to the application's problem is >> >> overlapping windows, which would be only mildly awful if not for our >> >> inability to support just one memory model. >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> > On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:47 AM, "Underwood, Keith D" >> >> > <keith.d.underwood(a)intel.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give you >> >> > an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals? >> >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:[email protected]] On >> >> >> Behalf Of Jeff Hammond >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM >> >> >> To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group >> >> >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 >> >> >> >> >> >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) >> >> >> needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, >> >> >> Barrett is gone :- >> >> >> ) >> >> >> >> >> >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That >> >> >> looks >> >> >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there >> >> >>> is a list >> >> >> of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire >> >> >> the open >> >> >> ones. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Bill >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I would like to discuss >> >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the >> >> >>>> closely related >> >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin >> >> >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Jeff >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> Jeff Hammond >> >> >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> >> >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >> >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >> >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >> >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >> > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpiwg-rma mailing list >> > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Jim Dinan 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

So, users won't expect that the interface can remotely complete a small RMA operation such that it overtakes a previously issued large RMA operation? On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It seems only obvious that remote request completion only makes sense > for large messages where individual completion makes sense. I can > think of numerous contexts where it does, especially in the limit of > not being able to register an infinity of pages. > > Jeff > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the argument against was that can be hard to get fine-grain, > > per-operation remote completion, and harder still to do it efficiently. > So, > > we could end up with an interface that builds a false expectation where > > users expect overlap that many implementations can't provide. > > > > ~Jim. > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Barrett didn't have a good argument against these functions except > >> argument count, as I recall. There was some debate as to whether > nonblocking > >> flush was better, albeit in an apples-to-oranges way. > >> > >> I think most people are just frustrated with the grossness of the corner > >> we are painted into with RMA API. Pirate RMA is the natural consequence > of > >> past decisions. The other solution to the application's problem is > >> overlapping windows, which would be only mildly awful if not for our > >> inability to support just one memory model. > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> > On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:47 AM, "Underwood, Keith D" > >> > <keith.d.underwood(a)intel.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give > you > >> > an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals? > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> >> Behalf Of Jeff Hammond > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM > >> >> To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group > >> >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 > >> >> > >> >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket > number) > >> >> needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, > >> >> Barrett is gone :- > >> >> ) > >> >> > >> >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That > >> >> looks > >> >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? > >> >> > >> >> Jeff > >> >> > >> >> Sent from my iPhone > >> >> > >> >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there > >> >>> is a list > >> >> of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire > >> >> the open > >> >> ones. > >> >>> > >> >>> Bill > >> >>> > >> >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I would like to discuss > >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the > >> >>>> closely related > >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San > Jose. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask > Martin > >> >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Jeff > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Jeff Hammond > >> >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >> >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> >>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-rma mailing list > > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Jeff Hammond 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

It seems only obvious that remote request completion only makes sense for large messages where individual completion makes sense. I can think of numerous contexts where it does, especially in the limit of not being able to register an infinity of pages. Jeff On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think the argument against was that can be hard to get fine-grain, > per-operation remote completion, and harder still to do it efficiently. So, > we could end up with an interface that builds a false expectation where > users expect overlap that many implementations can't provide. > > ~Jim. > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Barrett didn't have a good argument against these functions except >> argument count, as I recall. There was some debate as to whether nonblocking >> flush was better, albeit in an apples-to-oranges way. >> >> I think most people are just frustrated with the grossness of the corner >> we are painted into with RMA API. Pirate RMA is the natural consequence of >> past decisions. The other solution to the application's problem is >> overlapping windows, which would be only mildly awful if not for our >> inability to support just one memory model. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:47 AM, "Underwood, Keith D" >> > <keith.d.underwood(a)intel.com> wrote: >> > >> > So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give you >> > an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals? >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:[email protected]] On >> >> Behalf Of Jeff Hammond >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM >> >> To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group >> >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 >> >> >> >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) >> >> needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, >> >> Barrett is gone :- >> >> ) >> >> >> >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That >> >> looks >> >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there >> >>> is a list >> >> of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire >> >> the open >> >> ones. >> >>> >> >>> Bill >> >>> >> >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I would like to discuss >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the >> >>>> closely related >> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. >> >>>> >> >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin >> >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Jeff >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Jeff Hammond >> >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpiwg-rma mailing list >> > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Jim Dinan 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

I think the argument against was that can be hard to get fine-grain, per-operation remote completion, and harder still to do it efficiently. So, we could end up with an interface that builds a false expectation where users expect overlap that many implementations can't provide. ~Jim. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Barrett didn't have a good argument against these functions except > argument count, as I recall. There was some debate as to whether > nonblocking flush was better, albeit in an apples-to-oranges way. > > I think most people are just frustrated with the grossness of the corner > we are painted into with RMA API. Pirate RMA is the natural consequence of > past decisions. The other solution to the application's problem is > overlapping windows, which would be only mildly awful if not for our > inability to support just one memory model. > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:47 AM, "Underwood, Keith D" < > keith.d.underwood(a)intel.com> wrote: > > > > So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give you > an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of Jeff Hammond > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM > >> To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group > >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 > >> > >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) > >> needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, > Barrett is gone :- > >> ) > >> > >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That > looks > >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there > is a list > >> of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire > the open > >> ones. > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would like to discuss > >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the > >>>> closely related > >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. > >>>> > >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin > >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jeff > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeff Hammond > >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-rma mailing list > > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by William Gropp 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

Just what I suggested - it needs a restart that cleanly separates the issues. That is on my todo list, but there’s no possibility that I can get to that before SC. I will try to have something for discussion at the December meeting. Bill On Nov 6, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: > #456: What would it move forward? > > Rolf > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> >> To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" <mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:08:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 >> >> I’ve added #456, with my recommendation that we start over on that issue - >> we’ve discussed this ticket a lot, and I don’t think more discussion in the >> context of this ticket will move it forward. >> >> Bill >> >> On Nov 4, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: >> >>> Can we add >>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456 >>> to the agenda? >>> >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >>>> To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" >>>> <mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 6:38:50 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 >>>> >>>> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) >>>> needs >>>> to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, Barrett is gone >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That looks >>>> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there is a >>>>> list of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or >>>>> retire >>>>> the open ones. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to discuss >>>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the >>>>>> closely related >>>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin >>>>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jeff Hammond >>>>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>>>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >>>>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >>>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de >>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 >>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 >>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner >>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> > > -- > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Rolf Rabenseifner 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

#456: What would it move forward? Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Gropp" <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> > To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" <mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:08:02 AM > Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 > > I’ve added #456, with my recommendation that we start over on that issue - > we’ve discussed this ticket a lot, and I don’t think more discussion in the > context of this ticket will move it forward. > > Bill > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: > > > Can we add > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456 > > to the agenda? > > > > Rolf > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > >> To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" > >> <mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 6:38:50 PM > >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 > >> > >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) > >> needs > >> to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, Barrett is gone > >> :-) > >> > >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That looks > >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there is a > >>> list of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or > >>> retire > >>> the open ones. > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would like to discuss > >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the > >>>> closely related > >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. > >>>> > >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin > >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jeff > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeff Hammond > >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > >> > > > > -- > > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de > > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 > > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 > > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner > > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-rma mailing list > > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307)

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Jeff Hammond 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Barrett didn't have a good argument against these functions except argument count, as I recall. There was some debate as to whether nonblocking flush was better, albeit in an apples-to-oranges way. I think most people are just frustrated with the grossness of the corner we are painted into with RMA API. Pirate RMA is the natural consequence of past decisions. The other solution to the application's problem is overlapping windows, which would be only mildly awful if not for our inability to support just one memory model. Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:47 AM, "Underwood, Keith D" <keith.d.underwood(a)intel.com> wrote: > > So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give you an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Jeff Hammond >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM >> To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 >> >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) >> needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, Barrett is gone :- >> ) >> >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That looks >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it? >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: >>> >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there is a list >> of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire the open >> ones. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would like to discuss >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the >>>> closely related >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. >>>> >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Hammond >>>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >>>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list >>> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-rma mailing list >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
by Underwood, Keith D 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give you an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals? > -----Original Message----- > From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jeff Hammond > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM > To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group > Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014 > > Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number) > needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again, Barrett is gone :- > ) > > Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That looks > promising. Can you create a ticket for it? > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > > > > The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460. Note also that there is a list > of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire the open > ones. > > > > Bill > > > >> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I would like to discuss > >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the > >> closely related > >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose. > >> > >> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin > >> for the appropriate allocation of time? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Hammond > >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-rma mailing list > >> mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-rma mailing list > > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

1 0