I’d like to explore the use of a collective allocator and attach/detach within the dynamic window rather than yet another window creation routine, especially one that didn’t involve non-disjoint collections of processes.  One of the hallmarks of the RMA approach is to separate actions that are tied together in other communication models, such as two-sided.  The route to minimum latency that you are proposing involves eliminating function calls, which will inevitably take us back to collections of routines that attempt to match users’ needs but at the cost of generality.

Bill

William Gropp
Director, Parallel Computing Institute
Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign





On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:49 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner@hlrs.de> wrote:

Jim and all,

It is not syntactic sugar.
It is a latency optimizing enhancement:

If you are doing neighbor communication with 1-sided
communication to 6 neighbors - based on 6 windows that
are all defined in MPI_COMM_WORLD, then currently
you need to call 6 times the synchronization calls
which implies at maximum a 6 times larger latency,
e.g., 6 times MPI_Win_fence instead of one call.

If you are using MPI on shared memory windows,
then the same latency problem exists, but here,
the trick with dynamic windows is impossible
because shared memory windows must be allocated
with MPI_Win_allocate_shared.    

Of course, it is more complicated to define
MPI_Win_combine on a superset of communicators used
for all the combined windows.

As a first effort,  it would be already helpful
to define it for the same communicator.
To allow enhancements in a future MPI version,
I still would recommend to have the comm argument
as part of the argument list.

Rolf

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Dinan" <james.dinan@gmail.com>
To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" <mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:48:02 PM
Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] Single RMA synchronization for several window        handles



Hi Rolf,


I had initially proposed this in the context of passive target RMA.
Active target RMA already notifies the receiver when data has
arrived, but there is no efficient way to get such a notification in
passive target RMA.  I think what you are proposing here would be
syntactic sugar on top of the existing interface --- could I
implement this by fencing every window to determine that all
transfers are completed?


I agree with the comments regarding dynamic windows.  The merged
window would contain discontiguous buffers; thus, it would lose the
ability to do offset-based addressing and would need to use absolute
(BOTTOM-based) addressing.


~Jim.



On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <
rabenseifner@hlrs.de > wrote:


Jim,

your topic "Reducing Synchronization Overhead Through Bundled
Communication" may get also help if we would be able to
combine several window handles to one superset window handle.

If you have several windows for different buffers, but
only one synchronization pattern, e.g. MPI_Win_fince
then currently you must call MPI_Win_fence seperately
for each window handle.

I would propose:

MPI_Win_combine (/*IN*/  int count,
                /*IN*/  MPI_Win *win,
                /*IN*/  MPI_Comm comm,
                /*OUT*/ MPI_Win *win_combined)

The process group of comm must contain the process groups of all win.
The resulting window handle win_combined can be used only
in RMA synchronization calls and other helper routines,
but not for dynamic window allocation nor for any
RMA communication routine.
Collective synchronization routines must be called by all processes
of comm.
The semantics of an RMA synchronization call using win_combined
is defined as if the calls were seperately issued for
each window handle of the array win. If group handles
are part of the argument list of the synchronization call
then the appropriate subset is used for each window handle in win.

What do you think about this idea for MPI-4.0?

Best regards
Rolf

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Dinan" < james.dinan@gmail.com >
To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" <
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org >
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 4:08:32 PM
Subject: [mpiwg-rma] RMA Notification



Hi All,


I have added a new proposal for an RMA notification extension:
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/439


I would like to bring this forward for the RMA WG to consider as an
MPI-4 extension.


Cheers,
~Jim.
_______________________________________________
mpiwg-rma mailing list
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

--
Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner@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@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

_______________________________________________
mpiwg-rma mailing list
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

--
Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner@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@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma