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

FENCE local completion requirements
by Balaji, Pavan 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Hello, The MPI-3 RMA chapter says the following (pg. 440, lines 45-48 and pg. 441, lines 34-35): “All RMA operations on win originating at a given process and started before the fence call will complete at that process before the fence call returns. They will be completed at their target before the fence call returns at the target. RMA operations on win started by a process after the fence call returns will access their target window only after MPI_WIN_FENCE has been called by the target process.” This seems to imply that: 1. The FENCE call only implies local completion for a given process. 2. Operations issued after the local FENCE need to figure out whether the target has completed the FENCE operation. Does anyone remember why the standard was written this way? If the MPI implementation uses hardware RDMA, it has to enforce remote completion anyway (in order to tell the target process that data issued to it has completed). Even if the MPI implementation uses strictly active messages, we either need to enforce remote completion or RMA operations after the FENCE have to check in their AM handlers if the target has completed the previous FENCE (or queue up potentially many RMA operations if this has not happened yet). The only case I can think of whether this weaker semantics would benefit is if the FENCE operation locally queues up the issued RMA operations and implements them as an Alltoall-style collective internally. I guess this is valid implementation choice, though it’s unclear which implementations do this. Now, the question is what are we losing by this weaker semantics — In one of the projects here, we are using multiple overlapping windows (i.e., we have more than one window handle for the same set of buffers). In this case, the following program would be incorrect: MPI_WIN_FENCE(win1) MPI_PUT(<something>, remote_offset, win1) MPI_WIN_FENCE(win1) MPI_WIN_FENCE(win2) MPI_GET(<something>, remote_offset, win2) MPI_WIN_FENCE(win2) Since there is no remote completion on win1, the GET might not get the same data as what was put on win1. I’ll need to add extra synchronization here: MPI_WIN_FENCE(win1) MPI_PUT(<something>, remote_offset, win1) MPI_WIN_FENCE(win1) MPI_BARRIER() MPI_WIN_FENCE(win2) MPI_GET(<something>, remote_offset, win2) MPI_WIN_FENCE(win2) This seems unnecessary for most implementations since they already do a synchronization. In short: (1) the standard gives weak semantics hoping the implementation can take advantage of it, (2) most implementations are not taking advantage of it due to the use of hardware RDMA or otherwise, and (3) it’s creating annoying synchronization requirements for users. Is there some way we can improve this situation? I’m not advocating making the synchronization requirements stronger in the standard. But if there’s a way for the user to either request for a strong synchronization or if there’s a way for the implementation to expose this to the user, it might be more beneficial. One option is make the default the stronger semantics and provide an assert for the weaker semantics. Thoughts? — Pavan -- Pavan Balaji ✉️ http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary
by Jeff Hammond 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

My preference is that WIN_SYNC and it alone do the memory barrier that causes PUBLIC=PRIVATE window. Thus, WIN_FLUSH* only completes RMA operations, i.e. synchronizes action on the PUBLIC window (and has no effect on private window). This orthogonalizes WIN_SYNC and WIN_FLUSH* in a way that allows users to achieve the highest possible performance, at the expense of requiring two calls instead of one in some cases, i.e. when one must affect both load-store on PRIVATE and RMA on PUBLIC at the same time. I contend this is not inconsistent with what we have already because neither WIN_SYNC nor WIN_FLUSH* close an epoch. WIN_UNLOCK* will definitely have the effect of WIN_SYNC and WIN_FLUSH*, as it should to be consistent with all of the synchronization methods from MPI-2. And frankly, this is the only option that is compatible with the existing text for WIN_FLUSH (page 450). Best, Jeff On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:39 PM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > Thanks, Jeff. > > I agree that I don’t want load/store to be considered RMA operations. But > the issue of the memory consistency on RMA synchronization and completion > operations to a shared memory window is complex. In some ways, the most > consistent with RMA in other situations is the case of MPI_Win_lock to your > own process; the easiest extension for the user is to have reasonably strong > memory barrier semantics at all sync/completion operations (thus including > Fence). As you note, this has costs. At the other extreme, we could say > that only Win_sync provides these memory barrier semantics. And we could > pick a more complex blend (yes for some, no for others). > > One of the first questions is whether we want to only Win_sync, all > completion/sync RMA routines, or some subset to provide memory barrier > semantics for shared memory windows (this would include RMA windows that > claimed to be shared memory, since there is a proposal to extend that > property to other RMA windows). It would be good to make progress on this > question, so I propose a straw vote of this group by email. Vote for 1 of > the following: > > a) Only Win_sync provides memory barrier semantics to shared memory windows > b) All RMA completion/sync routines (e.g., MPI_Win_lock, MPI_Win_fence, > MPI_Win_flush) provide memory barrier semantics > c) Some as yet undetermined blend of a and b, which might include additional > asserts > d) This topic needs further discussion > > Note that I’ve left off what “memory barrier semantics” means. That will > need to be precisely defined for the standard, but I believe we know what we > intend for this. We specifically are not defining what happens with non-MPI > code. Also note that this is separate from whether the RMA sync routines > appear to be blocking when applied to a shared memory window; we can do a > separate straw vote on that. > > Bill > > On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > wrote: > > Only about the issues on #456 (shared memory syncronization): > > 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. > > > Who can organize telecons on #456. > Would it be possible to organize a RMA meeting at SC? > > > I will be there Monday through part of Thursday but am usually > triple-booked from 8 AM to midnight. > > The position expressed by the solution #456 is based on the idea > that the MPI RMA synchronization routines should have the same > outcome when RMA PUT and GET calls are substituted by stores and loads. > > The outcome for the flush routines is still not defined. > > > It is interesting, because the standard is actually conflicting on > whether Flush affects load-store. I find this incredibly frustrating. > > Page 450: > > "Locally completes at the origin all outstanding RMA operations > initiated by the calling process to the target process specified by > rank on the specified window. For example, after this routine > completes, the user may reuse any buffers provided to put, get, or > accumulate operations." > > I do not not think "RMA operations" includes load-store. > > Page 410: > > "The consistency of load/store accesses from/to the shared memory as > observed by the user program depends on the architecture. A consistent > view can be created in the unified memory model (see Section 11.4) by > utilizing the window synchronization functions (see Section 11.5) or > explicitly completing outstanding store accesses (e.g., by calling > MPI_WIN_FLUSH)." > > Here it is unambiguously implied that MPI_WIN_FLUSH affects load-stores. > > My preference is to fix the statement on 410 since it is less > canonical than the one on 450, and because I do not want to have a > memory barrier in every call to WIN_FLUSH. > > Jeff > > I would prefere to have an organizer of the discussion inside of > the RMA subgroup that proposed the changes for MPI-3.1 > rather that I'm the organizer. > I tried to bring all the input together and hope that #456 > is now state that it is consistent itsself and with the > expectations expressed by the group that published the > paper at EuroMPI on first usage of this shared memory interface. > > The ticket is (together with the help of recent C11 standadization) > on a good way to be also consistent with the compiler optimizations - > in other words - the C standardization body has learnt from the > pthreads problems. Fortran is still an open question to me, > i.e., I do not know the status, see > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456#comment:13 > > Best regards > 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: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:19:14 PM > Subject: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary > > 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 > > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary
by William Gropp 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Thanks, Jeff. I agree that I don’t want load/store to be considered RMA operations. But the issue of the memory consistency on RMA synchronization and completion operations to a shared memory window is complex. In some ways, the most consistent with RMA in other situations is the case of MPI_Win_lock to your own process; the easiest extension for the user is to have reasonably strong memory barrier semantics at all sync/completion operations (thus including Fence). As you note, this has costs. At the other extreme, we could say that only Win_sync provides these memory barrier semantics. And we could pick a more complex blend (yes for some, no for others). One of the first questions is whether we want to only Win_sync, all completion/sync RMA routines, or some subset to provide memory barrier semantics for shared memory windows (this would include RMA windows that claimed to be shared memory, since there is a proposal to extend that property to other RMA windows). It would be good to make progress on this question, so I propose a straw vote of this group by email. Vote for 1 of the following: a) Only Win_sync provides memory barrier semantics to shared memory windows b) All RMA completion/sync routines (e.g., MPI_Win_lock, MPI_Win_fence, MPI_Win_flush) provide memory barrier semantics c) Some as yet undetermined blend of a and b, which might include additional asserts d) This topic needs further discussion Note that I’ve left off what “memory barrier semantics” means. That will need to be precisely defined for the standard, but I believe we know what we intend for this. We specifically are not defining what happens with non-MPI code. Also note that this is separate from whether the RMA sync routines appear to be blocking when applied to a shared memory window; we can do a separate straw vote on that. Bill On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: >> Only about the issues on #456 (shared memory syncronization): >> >>> 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. >> >> Who can organize telecons on #456. >> Would it be possible to organize a RMA meeting at SC? > > I will be there Monday through part of Thursday but am usually > triple-booked from 8 AM to midnight. > >> The position expressed by the solution #456 is based on the idea >> that the MPI RMA synchronization routines should have the same >> outcome when RMA PUT and GET calls are substituted by stores and loads. >> >> The outcome for the flush routines is still not defined. > > It is interesting, because the standard is actually conflicting on > whether Flush affects load-store. I find this incredibly frustrating. > > Page 450: > > "Locally completes at the origin all outstanding RMA operations > initiated by the calling process to the target process specified by > rank on the specified window. For example, after this routine > completes, the user may reuse any buffers provided to put, get, or > accumulate operations." > > I do not not think "RMA operations" includes load-store. > > Page 410: > > "The consistency of load/store accesses from/to the shared memory as > observed by the user program depends on the architecture. A consistent > view can be created in the unified memory model (see Section 11.4) by > utilizing the window synchronization functions (see Section 11.5) or > explicitly completing outstanding store accesses (e.g., by calling > MPI_WIN_FLUSH)." > > Here it is unambiguously implied that MPI_WIN_FLUSH affects load-stores. > > My preference is to fix the statement on 410 since it is less > canonical than the one on 450, and because I do not want to have a > memory barrier in every call to WIN_FLUSH. > > Jeff > >> I would prefere to have an organizer of the discussion inside of >> the RMA subgroup that proposed the changes for MPI-3.1 >> rather that I'm the organizer. >> I tried to bring all the input together and hope that #456 >> is now state that it is consistent itsself and with the >> expectations expressed by the group that published the >> paper at EuroMPI on first usage of this shared memory interface. >> >> The ticket is (together with the help of recent C11 standadization) >> on a good way to be also consistent with the compiler optimizations - >> in other words - the C standardization body has learnt from the >> pthreads problems. Fortran is still an open question to me, >> i.e., I do not know the status, see >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456#comment:13 >> >> Best regards >> 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: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:19:14 PM >>> Subject: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > 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] MPI RMA status summary
by Jeff Hammond 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: > Only about the issues on #456 (shared memory syncronization): > >> 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. > > Who can organize telecons on #456. > Would it be possible to organize a RMA meeting at SC? I will be there Monday through part of Thursday but am usually triple-booked from 8 AM to midnight. > The position expressed by the solution #456 is based on the idea > that the MPI RMA synchronization routines should have the same > outcome when RMA PUT and GET calls are substituted by stores and loads. > > The outcome for the flush routines is still not defined. It is interesting, because the standard is actually conflicting on whether Flush affects load-store. I find this incredibly frustrating. Page 450: "Locally completes at the origin all outstanding RMA operations initiated by the calling process to the target process specified by rank on the specified window. For example, after this routine completes, the user may reuse any buffers provided to put, get, or accumulate operations." I do not not think "RMA operations" includes load-store. Page 410: "The consistency of load/store accesses from/to the shared memory as observed by the user program depends on the architecture. A consistent view can be created in the unified memory model (see Section 11.4) by utilizing the window synchronization functions (see Section 11.5) or explicitly completing outstanding store accesses (e.g., by calling MPI_WIN_FLUSH)." Here it is unambiguously implied that MPI_WIN_FLUSH affects load-stores. My preference is to fix the statement on 410 since it is less canonical than the one on 450, and because I do not want to have a memory barrier in every call to WIN_FLUSH. Jeff > I would prefere to have an organizer of the discussion inside of > the RMA subgroup that proposed the changes for MPI-3.1 > rather that I'm the organizer. > I tried to bring all the input together and hope that #456 > is now state that it is consistent itsself and with the > expectations expressed by the group that published the > paper at EuroMPI on first usage of this shared memory interface. > > The ticket is (together with the help of recent C11 standadization) > on a good way to be also consistent with the compiler optimizations - > in other words - the C standardization body has learnt from the > pthreads problems. Fortran is still an open question to me, > i.e., I do not know the status, see > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456#comment:13 > > Best regards > 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: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:19:14 PM >> Subject: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary >> >> 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 > > -- > 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 -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary
by Rolf Rabenseifner 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Only about the issues on #456 (shared memory syncronization): > 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. Who can organize telecons on #456. Would it be possible to organize a RMA meeting at SC? The position expressed by the solution #456 is based on the idea that the MPI RMA synchronization routines should have the same outcome when RMA PUT and GET calls are substituted by stores and loads. The outcome for the flush routines is still not defined. I would prefere to have an organizer of the discussion inside of the RMA subgroup that proposed the changes for MPI-3.1 rather that I'm the organizer. I tried to bring all the input together and hope that #456 is now state that it is consistent itsself and with the expectations expressed by the group that published the paper at EuroMPI on first usage of this shared memory interface. The ticket is (together with the help of recent C11 standadization) on a good way to be also consistent with the compiler optimizations - in other words - the C standardization body has learnt from the pthreads problems. Fortran is still an open question to me, i.e., I do not know the status, see https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456#comment:13 Best regards 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: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:19:14 PM > Subject: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary > > 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 -- 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] MPI RMA status summary
by Jeff Hammond 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

My shared memory proposal will be #397 plus some. I may split the 'plus some' into a second ticket if the WG encourages it. I don't know if this answers your question, but I couldn't tell what you meant by "first item" and the obvious guesses didn't make sense. Jeff On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:46 AM, William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> wrote: > Thanks, Jeff. I’ll update the note on 369. Note that 359 is marked as > passed but not closed; its probably one of the ones that can just be closed. > > Does your shared memory proposal subsume the first item? > > Bill > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Per the history therein, > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/369 passed the > first vote in Chicago in June. Why do you think it has been dropped? > > I thought https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/359 > passed but there's no clear evidence of this on the ticket. > > I previously updated > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi3-rma-agenda to > reflect my intended activities: > > Draft Agenda for MPI-3 RMA Working Group: December 2014 > > #396 - RMA needs new assertions for passive-target epochs. Current > status (3/14): Add these assertions. Text needed. > #397 - extend the use of MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY to all windows. Current > status (3/14): Text proposed, straw vote 4/2/0. > #401 - MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_Get_accumulate > #416 - MPI Accumulate operation restrictions > > In particular, I will have a relatively large proposal related to > shared memory, which will be part of #397 (the scope of this ticket is > evolving). > > Jeff > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:19 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 > > > > > -- > 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 -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary
by William Gropp 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Thanks, Jeff. I’ll update the note on 369. Note that 359 is marked as passed but not closed; its probably one of the ones that can just be closed. Does your shared memory proposal subsume the first item? Bill On Sep 25, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Per the history therein, > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/369 passed the > first vote in Chicago in June. Why do you think it has been dropped? > > I thought https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/359 > passed but there's no clear evidence of this on the ticket. > > I previously updated > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi3-rma-agenda to > reflect my intended activities: > > Draft Agenda for MPI-3 RMA Working Group: December 2014 > > #396 - RMA needs new assertions for passive-target epochs. Current > status (3/14): Add these assertions. Text needed. > #397 - extend the use of MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY to all windows. Current > status (3/14): Text proposed, straw vote 4/2/0. > #401 - MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_Get_accumulate > #416 - MPI Accumulate operation restrictions > > In particular, I will have a relatively large proposal related to > shared memory, which will be part of #397 (the scope of this ticket is > evolving). > > Jeff > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:19 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 > > > > -- > 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] MPI RMA status summary
by Jeff Hammond 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Per the history therein, https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/369 passed the first vote in Chicago in June. Why do you think it has been dropped? I thought https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/359 passed but there's no clear evidence of this on the ticket. I previously updated https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi3-rma-agenda to reflect my intended activities: Draft Agenda for MPI-3 RMA Working Group: December 2014 #396 - RMA needs new assertions for passive-target epochs. Current status (3/14): Add these assertions. Text needed. #397 - extend the use of MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY to all windows. Current status (3/14): Text proposed, straw vote 4/2/0. #401 - MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_Get_accumulate #416 - MPI Accumulate operation restrictions In particular, I will have a relatively large proposal related to shared memory, which will be part of #397 (the scope of this ticket is evolving). Jeff On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:19 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 -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

MPI RMA status summary
by William Gropp 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

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

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-rma] "Outcome" Errata
by Jeff Hammond 15 Sep '14

15 Sep '14

I like this except for the subject-verb agreement :-) Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 15, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I would like to propose the following (short) RMA erratum for MPI 3.0. Please review and send feedback. > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/458 > > ~Jim. > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-rma mailing list > mpiwg-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

1 0