October 2011 - mpiwg-tools - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

[Mpi3-tools] MPI_T implementation now available
by Dave Goodell 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

I've finished a rough implementation of MPI_T in MPICH2 and attached it to the MPI3Tools wiki page: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/wiki/MPI3Tools/mpit… The implementation exposes all of MPICH2's current environment variable parameters via the "cvar" interface for both reading and writing. It also adds two performance variables for querying the lengths of the posted and unexpected receive queues. You should be able to play with it by applying the patch to r9009 of MPICH2's trunk and using the MPICH2 build instructions given here: http://wiki.mcs.anl.gov/mpich2/index.php/Getting_And_Building_MPICH2 The included patch is one large diff for convenient application ("patch -p1 < ..."). I can provide it as a patch set if anyone finds the current format too confusing to read (although there's still lots of boring boilerplate in that format). Included in the tarball are two simple test programs for checking that control variables and performance variables are generally usable. When using/inspecting the code, please keep in mind that this is not a polished, clean version of the code. Though it is certainly workable, I took a few shortcuts and left some parts incomplete in the interest of getting it out sooner rather than later. Some evolved version of this will likely end up in MPICH2's trunk (and next release) in the near future. IMO, what is currently here meets the implementation requirement for new MPI-3 features. -Dave

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] [MPI3 Fortran] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Rolf Rabenseifner 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

Dear all, This is an updated version of the text changes based on the results of the discussion in the tel-con today. Please check again. And do we need to have all these 13 groups? I expect that all MPI implementors implement the new 3.0 routines in the same way as 2.2, therefore I would like to combine these groups, i.e. to remove the groups - MPI_NEIGHBOR_ALLTOALL - MPI_IBCAST - MPI_IBARRIER ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > To: "MPI3 Tools" <mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org>, "MPI-3 Fortran working group" <mpi3-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 12:18:09 PM > Subject: Re: [MPI3 Fortran] [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues according to pages:lines in https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/229/mpi-repo… and the decision of the Santorini 2011 meeting, we should add the following text to accommodate the tools implementors. P559:20-21 reads equals .FALSE.. If but should read equals .FALSE., and After p559 the following text should be added: ---------------------------- To simplify the development of profiling libraries, the MPI routines are grouped together and it is required that if the peer routine of a group is available within an MPI library with one of its possible linker names then all of the routines in this group must be also provided according to the same linker name scheme, and if the peer routine is not available through a linker name scheme then all other routines have also not to be available through this scheme. Peer routines and their groups: - MPI_ALLOC_MEM MPI_ALLOC_MEM and MPI_WIN_ALLOCATE. - MPI_FREE_MEM Only this routine is in this group. - MPI_GET_ADDRESS MPI_GET_ADDRESS and MPI_ADDRESS. - MPI_SEND All routines with choice buffer arguments that are not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and exist already in MPI-2.2. - MPI_NEIGHBOR_ALLTOALL All routines with choice buffer arguments that are not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and are new in MPI-3.0. - MPI_ISEND All routines with choice buffer arguments that are declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and exist already in MPI-2.2. - MPI_IBCAST All routines with choice buffer arguments that are declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and are new in MPI-3.0. - MPI_OP_CREATE Only this routine is in this group. - MPI_REGISTER_DATAREP Only this routine is in this group. - MPI_COMM_KEYVAL_CREATE All other routines with callback function arguments. - MPI_COMM_DUP_FN All predefined callback routines. - MPI_COMM_RANK All other MPI routines that exist already in MPI-2.2. - MPI_IBARRIER All other MPI routines that are new in MPI-3.0. Additionally, four C preprocessor macros are available in mpi.h for each routine group. The name of the macros are the peer routine name written as in the list above and appended with one of the following suffixes and meanings: - _mpi_f08_linkernames_BIND_C The macro is set to 1 if the BIND(C) linker name with the linker suffix _f08 is available for all routines within this group (e.g., MPI_Send_f08), otherwise it is set to 0. - _mpi_f08_linkernames_Fortran The macro is set to 1 if the Fortran linker name with the linker suffix _f08 is available for all routines within this group (e.g., mpi_send_f08__), otherwise it is set to 0. - _mpi_linkernames_BIND_C The macro is set to 1 if the BIND(C) linker name with the linker suffix _f is available for all routines within this group (e.g., MPI_Send_f), otherwise it is set to 0. - _mpi_linkernames_Fortran The macro is set to 1 if the Fortran linker name without a linker suffix is available for all routines within this group (e.g., mpi_send__), otherwise it is set to 0. For example ... #define MPI_SEND_mpi_f08_linkernames_BIND_C 0 #define MPI_SEND_mpi_f08_linkernames_Fortran 1 #define MPI_SEND_mpi_linkernames_BIND_C 0 #define MPI_SEND_mpi_linkernames_Fortran 1 #define MPI_ISEND_mpi_f08_linkernames_BIND_C 1 #define MPI_ISEND_mpi_f08_linkernames_Fortran 1 #define MPI_ISEND_mpi_linkernames_BIND_C 1 #define MPI_ISEND_mpi_linkernames_Fortran 1 ... #define MPI_COMM_DUP_FN_mpi_f08_linkernames_BIND_C 1 #define MPI_COMM_DUP_FN_mpi_f08_linkernames_Fortran 0 #define MPI_COMM_DUP_FN_mpi_linkernames_BIND_C 0 #define MPI_COMM_DUP_FN_mpi_linkernames_Fortran 1 ... shows, that MPI_SEND, MPI_RECV, and all other routines in this group are only available through their Fortran linker names (e.g., mpi_send_f08__, mpi_send__, mpi_recv_f08__, mpi_recv__, ...), while MPI_ISEND, MPI_IRECV, ... are available with all four interfaces to support the current modules providing TR quality, but to support also application routines that are compiled with and older MPI library version with .._BIND_C set to 0 and only _Fortran set to 1. For the predefined callbacks, there is no choice, because the interfaces must fit to the callback function prototypes which are BIND(C) based for mpi_f08 and without BIND(C) for the mpi module and mpif.h. Advice to implementors. If all the following conditions are fulfilled (which is the case for most compilers) - the handles in the mpi_f08 module occupy one Fortran numerical storage unit (same as an INTEGER handle), and - the internal argument passing used to pass an actual ierror argument to a non optional ierror dummy argument is binary compatible to passing an actual ierror argument to an ierror dummy argument that is declared as OPTIONAL, and - the internal argument passing for ASYNCHRONOUS and non-ASYNCHRONOUS arguments is the same, and - the internal routine call mechanism is the same for the Fortran and the C compiler, and - the compiler does not provide TR 29113, then for most groups, the implementor may use the same internal routine implementations for all Fortran support methods with only different linker names. For TR 29113 quality, new routines are needed only for the routine groups of MPI_ISEND and MPI_IBCAST. End of advice to implementors. ---------------------------- Not directly relevant for the tools people, but giving the reason for differentiating several Choice-buffer routine groups, the following changes are also done: P552:14-18 read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. and declare choice buffers using the Fortran 2008 TR 29113 feature assumed-type and assumed-rank, i.e., TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), if the underlying Fortran compiler supports it. With this, non-contiguous sub-arrays can be used as buffers in nonblocking routines. but should read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. and declare choice buffers using the Fortran 2008 TR 29113 feature assumed-type and assumed-rank, i.e., TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..) in all nonblocking, split collective and persistent communication routines, if the underlying Fortran compiler supports it. With this, non-contiguous sub-arrays can be used as buffers in nonblocking routines. Rationale. In all blocking routines, i.e., if the choice-buffer is not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS, the TR 29113 feature is not needed for the support of non-contiguous buffers because the compiler can pass the buffer by in-and-out-copy through a contiguous scratch array. End of rationale. P555:7-10 read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. if all choice buffer arguments are declared with TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), otherwise set it to .FALSE.. With MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED==.TRUE., non-contiguous subarrays can be used as buers in nonblocking routines. but should read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. if all choice buffer arguments in all nonblocking, split collective and persistent communication routines are declared with TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), otherwise set it to .FALSE.. With MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED==.TRUE., non-contiguous subarrays can be used as buers in nonblocking routines. Best regards Rolf -- 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: Allmandring 30)

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] Tools meeting Monday Oct 3
by Rolf Rabenseifner 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

And the same for each peer rotine of each routine group > > # Symbols for mpif.h and use mpi > # define MPI_SEND_with_mpi_OLD > # > MPI_SEND > mpi_send > mpi_send_ > mpi_send__ > > > #define MPI_SEND_with_mpi_TR > # > MPI_Send_f # has choice buffer as array descriptor > > > # Symbols for use mpi_f08 (not using the new interop TR) > # define MPI_SEND_with_mpi_f08_OLD > # > MPI_SEND_f08 > mpi_send_f08 > mpi_send_f08_ > mpi_send_f08__ > > > # define MPI_SEND_with_mpi_f08_TR > # > MPI_Send_f08 # has choice buffer as array descriptor -- 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: Allmandring 30)

1 0

[Mpi3-tools] Fwd: [MPI3 Fortran] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Jeff Squyres 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

The mail from Rolf that didn't make it to the tools list. Begin forwarded message: > From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > Date: October 3, 2011 4:18:09 AM MDT > To: MPI3 Tools <mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org>, MPI-3 Fortran working group <mpi3-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Subject: Re: [MPI3 Fortran] [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues > Reply-To: MPI-3 Fortran working group <mpi3-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > > Dear all, > > according to pages:lines in > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/229/mpi-repo… > and the decision of the Santorini 2011 meeting, > we should add the following text to accommodate the tools implementors. > > P559:20-21 reads > equals .FALSE.. If > but should read > equals .FALSE., and > > After p559 the following text should be added: > > ---------------------------- > To simplify the development of profiling libraries, the MPI routines > are grouped together and it is required that > if the peer routine of a group is available within an MPI library > with one of its possible linker names then all of the routines > in this group must be also provided according to the same linker > name scheme, and if the peer routine is not available through > a linker name scheme then all other routines have also not to be > available through this scheme. > > Peer routines and their groups: > - MPI_ALLOC_MEM > MPI_ALLOC_MEM and MPI_WIN_ALLOCATE. > - MPI_FREE_MEM > Only this routine is in this group. > - MPI_GET_ADDRESS > MPI_GET_ADDRESS and MPI_ADDRESS. > - MPI_SEND > All routines with choice buffer arguments that > are not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module > and exist already in MPI-2.2. > - MPI_NEIGHBOR_ALLTOALL > All routines with choice buffer arguments that > are not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module > and are new in MPI-3.0. > - MPI_ISEND > All routines with choice buffer arguments that > are declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module > and exist already in MPI-2.2. > - MPI_IBCAST > All routines with choice buffer arguments that > are declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module > and are new in MPI-3.0. > - MPI_OP_CREATE > Only this routine is in this group. > - MPI_REGISTER_DATAREP > Only this routine is in this group. > - MPI_COMM_KEYVAL_CREATE > All other routines with callback function arguments. > - MPI_COMM_DUP_FN > All predefined callback routines. > - MPI_COMM_RANK > All other MPI routines that exist already in MPI-2.2. > - MPI_IBARRIER > All other MPI routines that are new in MPI-3.0. > > Advice to implementors. > If all the following conditions are fulfilled > (which is the case for most compilers) > - the handles in the mpi_f08 module occupy one Fortran > numerical storage unit (same as an INTEGER handle), and > - the internal argument passing used to pass an actual ierror > argument to a non optional ierror dummy argument is binary > compatible to passing an actual ierror argument to an ierror > dummy argument that is declared as OPTIONAL, and > - the internal argument passing for ASYNCHRONOUS and > non-ASYNCHRONOUS arguments is the same, and > - the internal routine call mechanism is the same for > the Fortran and the C compiler, and > - the compiler does not provide TR 29113, > then for most groups, the implementor may use the same > internal routine implementations for all Fortran support > methods with only different linker names. > For TR 29113 quality, new routines are needed only for > the routine groups of MPI_ISEND and MPI_IBCAST. > End of advice to implementors. > ---------------------------- > > Not directly relevant for the tools people, but giving the reason > for differentiating several Choice-buffer routine groups, > the following changes are also done: > > P552:14-18 read > - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to > .TRUE. and declare choice buffers using the Fortran 2008 TR 29113 > feature assumed-type and assumed-rank, i.e., TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), > if the underlying Fortran compiler supports it. With this, > non-contiguous sub-arrays can be used as buffers in nonblocking routines. > but should read > - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to > .TRUE. and declare choice buffers using the Fortran 2008 TR 29113 > feature assumed-type and assumed-rank, i.e., TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..) > in all nonblocking, split collective and persistent communication > routines, > if the underlying Fortran compiler supports it. With this, > non-contiguous sub-arrays can be used as buffers in nonblocking routines. > > Rationale. In all blocking routines, i.e., if the choice-buffer > is not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS, the TR 29113 feature is not needed > for the support of non-contiguous buffers because the compiler > can pass the buffer by in-and-out-copy through a contiguous scratch > array. End of rationale. > > P555:7-10 read > - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to > .TRUE. if all choice buffer arguments > are declared with TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), otherwise set it to > .FALSE.. With MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED==.TRUE., non-contiguous > subarrays can be used as buers in nonblocking routines. > but should read > - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to > .TRUE. if all choice buffer arguments > in all nonblocking, split collective and persistent communication > routines > are declared with TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), otherwise set it to > .FALSE.. With MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED==.TRUE., non-contiguous > subarrays can be used as buers in nonblocking routines. > > I'll try to be at the tel-con today. > > Best regards > Rolf > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >> To: "Marc-Andre Hermanns" <m.a.hermanns(a)grs-sim.de> >> Cc: "MPI3 Tools" <mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org>, "Martin Schulz" <schulz6(a)llnl.gov>, "Craig E Rasmussen" >> <rasmussn(a)lanl.gov>, "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de>, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com>, "Andreas >> Knüpfer" <andreas.knuepfer(a)tu-dresden.de>, "Todd Gamblin" <tgamblin(a)llnl.gov>, "Tobias Hilbrich" >> <tobias.hilbrich(a)tu-dresden.de>, "MPI-3 Fortran working group" <mpi3-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:13:46 AM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues >> Hi Marc-Andre, >> >> On Sep 30, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marc-Andre Hermanns wrote: >> >>> Martin, >>> >>>> I was in Dresden the last few days (visiting the Vampir group, in >>>> particular Andreas Knuepfer and Tobias Hilbrich who are responsible >>>> for >>>> their MPI wrappers) and we sat down to talk about the issues around >>>> the >>>> profiling interface in ticket #229. >>>> >>>> Here is a quick summary with a few questions that came up: >>>> >>>> * With the new Fortran symbol naming variants, there are 6 or 8 or >>>> 10 >>>> versions for every MPI subroutine. Tools could intercept all >>>> versions by >>>> providing own symbols for all versions. >>> >>> If it is clear which name the symbols have, additional symbol names >>> should be easy to generate, so at this stage I think it doesn't >>> matter >>> much, whether we have 6, 8, or 10 different schemes to cover. Right? >> >> I agree - as long as we can generate a full list of names, we can >> intercept them all. Adding wrappers shouldn't be a problem. >> >>> >>>> Now the problem: Within the wrapper function a tool needs to call >>>> the >>>> correct PMPI call which usually is the same prefix (either '_f08', >>>> '_f', '__' etc.) as the MPI call it is in. A mapping to matching C >>>> functions (as most tools do it now) is not possible due to problems >>>> with calling conventions for callback routines. >>> >>> As far as I know our wrappers call the C routines, because we jump >>> through all sorts of hoops to get a proper Fortran to C conversion >>> and >>> back. So in this regard, we need to fix this. Interestingly this has >>> not >>> popped up yet. >> >> I agree - this is remarkable. >> >>> >>> If we write Fortran wrappers in Fortran, how would a Fortran wrapper >>> compiled with Fortran 77 have to call the C measurement code inside >>> the >>> wrapper? If the Fortran compiler implicitly adds underscores to the >>> calls, do I have to provide a special Fortran interface to my >>> measurement system then? >> >> That is a question for the Fortran experts. >> >>> >>>> * Would the following solution work? All wrappers for Fortran are >>>> written >>>> in Fortran instead of C. >>>> [...] >>>> For every MPI function, there are 6 or 8 variants and all of them >>>> need to be provided by a tool. This would probably mean that we >>>> have >>>> to compile wrappers with all three calling conventions (mpif.h, use >>>> mpi_f and use mpi_f08) and then link them together? >>> >>> Don't we need to compile with all three calling conventions on all >>> possible compilers on a given system? >> >> Also, here, I think the Fortran experts need to weigh in. >> >>> >>> We currently provide all 4 name-mangling schemes with every install >>> of >>> Scalasca, because we had some issues with applications using two >>> different Fortran compilers for different sub-modules. (This came up >>> in >>> a project some years back, and ever since then we provide all >>> schemes in >>> the same library and it seems to work.) >>> >>>> * As discussed at the forum, if we want to keep our tools in C >>>> (which is >>>> probably still the easier and better option), we need to know the >>>> symbols >>>> on the "p" side and we need a portable way to figure this out. We >>>> talked >>>> about the solution of two groups of routines - one for which we >>>> have _f08 >>>> symbols for one for which we don't. Rolf, how will you add this to >>>> the >>>> standard, in particular how will you form those groups. >>> >>> I started to get some doubts about this approach. One of the issues >>> was >>> that some choice-buffer routines had names longer than the proposed >>> limit. So they need to be mangled differently, especially, their >>> symbol >>> needs to be shortened. And as I understood it, the current idea is >>> to >>> leave it to the MPI implementation to define the shortened name. >> >> I thought that was just for the argument checking in mpif.h and that >> we decided to not support this. Are there more locations were the >> names are too long? >> >>> >>> It is one thing, finding out which suffix is used. Finding how >>> function >>> names are mangled without any form of restricting to possible >>> schemes >>> seems to be another ball game? >>> >>> Am I missing something? >> >> Yes, if we do have to shorten names, I agree - I think, though, we got >> around the issue, or did we not? >> >>> >>> I think, as it was pointed out in Santorini with the Fortran >>> Bindings in >>> general, we (or at least I) don't have enough Fortran expertise to >>> think >>> this through all to the end and consider all implications. I think >>> it >>> would be a great benefit to have people of the Fortran WG to join on >>> the >>> call on Monday. I hope this is possible. >> >> Yes, that would be great - all are cc-ed. >> >> Martin >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Marc-Andre >>> -- >>> Marc-Andre Hermanns >>> German Research School for >>> Simulation Sciences GmbH >>> c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming >>> 52056 Aachen | Germany >>> >>> Tel +49 241 80 99753 >>> Fax +49 241 80 6 99753 >>> Web www.grs-sim.de >>> >>> Members: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH | RWTH Aachen University >>> Registered in the commercial register of the local court of >>> Düren (Amtsgericht Düren) under registration number HRB 5268 >>> Registered office: Jülich >>> Executive board: Prof. Marek Behr Ph.D. | Dr. Norbert Drewes >>> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm >> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > -- > 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: Allmandring 30) > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-fortran mailing list > mpi3-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-fortran -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Jeff Squyres 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

Craig already agreed to be here today (in about 10 mins). On Oct 2, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Martin Schulz wrote: > Hi Rolf, > > Sorry, this must have gone lost in the long email trail. All the meeting information is on the tools Wiki at: > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Tools > > I know the holiday is a problem, but I couldn't see an option on how to avoid this since moving it to next week would have been too late to provide feedback in time. It would be great if you could make it anyway. Otherwise, any feedback by email would be great as well, in particular on the grouping of _f08 functions we talked about during the last forum. > > Thanks, > > Martin > > > On Oct 2, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> >>>> I think it >>>> would be a great benefit to have people of the Fortran WG to join on >>>> the call on Monday. I hope this is possible. >>> >>> Yes, that would be great - all are cc-ed. >> >> What must I do? >> Can you provide date, time, number? >> Oct. 3 is a holiday in Germany, therefore, I'm nut sure >> that I can join. >> >> Rolf >> >> >> -- >> 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: Allmandring 30) > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Rolf Rabenseifner 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

Dear all, according to pages:lines in https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/229/mpi-repo… and the decision of the Santorini 2011 meeting, we should add the following text to accommodate the tools implementors. P559:20-21 reads equals .FALSE.. If but should read equals .FALSE., and After p559 the following text should be added: ---------------------------- To simplify the development of profiling libraries, the MPI routines are grouped together and it is required that if the peer routine of a group is available within an MPI library with one of its possible linker names then all of the routines in this group must be also provided according to the same linker name scheme, and if the peer routine is not available through a linker name scheme then all other routines have also not to be available through this scheme. Peer routines and their groups: - MPI_ALLOC_MEM MPI_ALLOC_MEM and MPI_WIN_ALLOCATE. - MPI_FREE_MEM Only this routine is in this group. - MPI_GET_ADDRESS MPI_GET_ADDRESS and MPI_ADDRESS. - MPI_SEND All routines with choice buffer arguments that are not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and exist already in MPI-2.2. - MPI_NEIGHBOR_ALLTOALL All routines with choice buffer arguments that are not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and are new in MPI-3.0. - MPI_ISEND All routines with choice buffer arguments that are declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and exist already in MPI-2.2. - MPI_IBCAST All routines with choice buffer arguments that are declared as ASYNCHRONOUS within the mpi_f08 module and are new in MPI-3.0. - MPI_OP_CREATE Only this routine is in this group. - MPI_REGISTER_DATAREP Only this routine is in this group. - MPI_COMM_KEYVAL_CREATE All other routines with callback function arguments. - MPI_COMM_DUP_FN All predefined callback routines. - MPI_COMM_RANK All other MPI routines that exist already in MPI-2.2. - MPI_IBARRIER All other MPI routines that are new in MPI-3.0. Advice to implementors. If all the following conditions are fulfilled (which is the case for most compilers) - the handles in the mpi_f08 module occupy one Fortran numerical storage unit (same as an INTEGER handle), and - the internal argument passing used to pass an actual ierror argument to a non optional ierror dummy argument is binary compatible to passing an actual ierror argument to an ierror dummy argument that is declared as OPTIONAL, and - the internal argument passing for ASYNCHRONOUS and non-ASYNCHRONOUS arguments is the same, and - the internal routine call mechanism is the same for the Fortran and the C compiler, and - the compiler does not provide TR 29113, then for most groups, the implementor may use the same internal routine implementations for all Fortran support methods with only different linker names. For TR 29113 quality, new routines are needed only for the routine groups of MPI_ISEND and MPI_IBCAST. End of advice to implementors. ---------------------------- Not directly relevant for the tools people, but giving the reason for differentiating several Choice-buffer routine groups, the following changes are also done: P552:14-18 read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. and declare choice buffers using the Fortran 2008 TR 29113 feature assumed-type and assumed-rank, i.e., TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), if the underlying Fortran compiler supports it. With this, non-contiguous sub-arrays can be used as buffers in nonblocking routines. but should read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. and declare choice buffers using the Fortran 2008 TR 29113 feature assumed-type and assumed-rank, i.e., TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..) in all nonblocking, split collective and persistent communication routines, if the underlying Fortran compiler supports it. With this, non-contiguous sub-arrays can be used as buffers in nonblocking routines. Rationale. In all blocking routines, i.e., if the choice-buffer is not declared as ASYNCHRONOUS, the TR 29113 feature is not needed for the support of non-contiguous buffers because the compiler can pass the buffer by in-and-out-copy through a contiguous scratch array. End of rationale. P555:7-10 read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. if all choice buffer arguments are declared with TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), otherwise set it to .FALSE.. With MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED==.TRUE., non-contiguous subarrays can be used as buers in nonblocking routines. but should read - Set the INTEGER compile-time constant MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED to .TRUE. if all choice buffer arguments in all nonblocking, split collective and persistent communication routines are declared with TYPE(*), DIMENSION(..), otherwise set it to .FALSE.. With MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED==.TRUE., non-contiguous subarrays can be used as buers in nonblocking routines. I'll try to be at the tel-con today. Best regards Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> > To: "Marc-Andre Hermanns" <m.a.hermanns(a)grs-sim.de> > Cc: "MPI3 Tools" <mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org>, "Martin Schulz" <schulz6(a)llnl.gov>, "Craig E Rasmussen" > <rasmussn(a)lanl.gov>, "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de>, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com>, "Andreas > Knüpfer" <andreas.knuepfer(a)tu-dresden.de>, "Todd Gamblin" <tgamblin(a)llnl.gov>, "Tobias Hilbrich" > <tobias.hilbrich(a)tu-dresden.de>, "MPI-3 Fortran working group" <mpi3-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:13:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues > Hi Marc-Andre, > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marc-Andre Hermanns wrote: > > > Martin, > > > >> I was in Dresden the last few days (visiting the Vampir group, in > >> particular Andreas Knuepfer and Tobias Hilbrich who are responsible > >> for > >> their MPI wrappers) and we sat down to talk about the issues around > >> the > >> profiling interface in ticket #229. > >> > >> Here is a quick summary with a few questions that came up: > >> > >> * With the new Fortran symbol naming variants, there are 6 or 8 or > >> 10 > >> versions for every MPI subroutine. Tools could intercept all > >> versions by > >> providing own symbols for all versions. > > > > If it is clear which name the symbols have, additional symbol names > > should be easy to generate, so at this stage I think it doesn't > > matter > > much, whether we have 6, 8, or 10 different schemes to cover. Right? > > I agree - as long as we can generate a full list of names, we can > intercept them all. Adding wrappers shouldn't be a problem. > > > > >> Now the problem: Within the wrapper function a tool needs to call > >> the > >> correct PMPI call which usually is the same prefix (either '_f08', > >> '_f', '__' etc.) as the MPI call it is in. A mapping to matching C > >> functions (as most tools do it now) is not possible due to problems > >> with calling conventions for callback routines. > > > > As far as I know our wrappers call the C routines, because we jump > > through all sorts of hoops to get a proper Fortran to C conversion > > and > > back. So in this regard, we need to fix this. Interestingly this has > > not > > popped up yet. > > I agree - this is remarkable. > > > > > If we write Fortran wrappers in Fortran, how would a Fortran wrapper > > compiled with Fortran 77 have to call the C measurement code inside > > the > > wrapper? If the Fortran compiler implicitly adds underscores to the > > calls, do I have to provide a special Fortran interface to my > > measurement system then? > > That is a question for the Fortran experts. > > > > >> * Would the following solution work? All wrappers for Fortran are > >> written > >> in Fortran instead of C. > >> [...] > >> For every MPI function, there are 6 or 8 variants and all of them > >> need to be provided by a tool. This would probably mean that we > >> have > >> to compile wrappers with all three calling conventions (mpif.h, use > >> mpi_f and use mpi_f08) and then link them together? > > > > Don't we need to compile with all three calling conventions on all > > possible compilers on a given system? > > Also, here, I think the Fortran experts need to weigh in. > > > > > We currently provide all 4 name-mangling schemes with every install > > of > > Scalasca, because we had some issues with applications using two > > different Fortran compilers for different sub-modules. (This came up > > in > > a project some years back, and ever since then we provide all > > schemes in > > the same library and it seems to work.) > > > >> * As discussed at the forum, if we want to keep our tools in C > >> (which is > >> probably still the easier and better option), we need to know the > >> symbols > >> on the "p" side and we need a portable way to figure this out. We > >> talked > >> about the solution of two groups of routines - one for which we > >> have _f08 > >> symbols for one for which we don't. Rolf, how will you add this to > >> the > >> standard, in particular how will you form those groups. > > > > I started to get some doubts about this approach. One of the issues > > was > > that some choice-buffer routines had names longer than the proposed > > limit. So they need to be mangled differently, especially, their > > symbol > > needs to be shortened. And as I understood it, the current idea is > > to > > leave it to the MPI implementation to define the shortened name. > > I thought that was just for the argument checking in mpif.h and that > we decided to not support this. Are there more locations were the > names are too long? > > > > > It is one thing, finding out which suffix is used. Finding how > > function > > names are mangled without any form of restricting to possible > > schemes > > seems to be another ball game? > > > > Am I missing something? > > Yes, if we do have to shorten names, I agree - I think, though, we got > around the issue, or did we not? > > > > > I think, as it was pointed out in Santorini with the Fortran > > Bindings in > > general, we (or at least I) don't have enough Fortran expertise to > > think > > this through all to the end and consider all implications. I think > > it > > would be a great benefit to have people of the Fortran WG to join on > > the > > call on Monday. I hope this is possible. > > Yes, that would be great - all are cc-ed. > > Martin > > > > > > Cheers, > > Marc-Andre > > -- > > Marc-Andre Hermanns > > German Research School for > > Simulation Sciences GmbH > > c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming > > 52056 Aachen | Germany > > > > Tel +49 241 80 99753 > > Fax +49 241 80 6 99753 > > Web www.grs-sim.de > > > > Members: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH | RWTH Aachen University > > Registered in the commercial register of the local court of > > Düren (Amtsgericht Düren) under registration number HRB 5268 > > Registered office: Jülich > > Executive board: Prof. Marek Behr Ph.D. | Dr. Norbert Drewes > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA -- 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: Allmandring 30)

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Martin Schulz 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

Hi Rolf, Sorry, this must have gone lost in the long email trail. All the meeting information is on the tools Wiki at: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Tools I know the holiday is a problem, but I couldn't see an option on how to avoid this since moving it to next week would have been too late to provide feedback in time. It would be great if you could make it anyway. Otherwise, any feedback by email would be great as well, in particular on the grouping of _f08 functions we talked about during the last forum. Thanks, Martin On Oct 2, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >>> I think it >>> would be a great benefit to have people of the Fortran WG to join on >>> the call on Monday. I hope this is possible. >> >> Yes, that would be great - all are cc-ed. > > What must I do? > Can you provide date, time, number? > Oct. 3 is a holiday in Germany, therefore, I'm nut sure > that I can join. > > Rolf > > > -- > 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: Allmandring 30) ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Martin Schulz 01 Oct '11

01 Oct '11

Trying again to get this posted to the mailing list. Martin On Oct 1, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Martin Schulz wrote: > Hi Marc-Andre, > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marc-Andre Hermanns wrote: > >> Martin, >> >>> I was in Dresden the last few days (visiting the Vampir group, in >>> particular Andreas Knuepfer and Tobias Hilbrich who are responsible for >>> their MPI wrappers) and we sat down to talk about the issues around the >>> profiling interface in ticket #229. >>> >>> Here is a quick summary with a few questions that came up: >>> >>> * With the new Fortran symbol naming variants, there are 6 or 8 or 10 >>> versions for every MPI subroutine. Tools could intercept all versions by >>> providing own symbols for all versions. >> >> If it is clear which name the symbols have, additional symbol names >> should be easy to generate, so at this stage I think it doesn't matter >> much, whether we have 6, 8, or 10 different schemes to cover. Right? > > I agree - as long as we can generate a full list of names, we can intercept them all. Adding wrappers shouldn't be a problem. > >> >>> Now the problem: Within the wrapper function a tool needs to call the >>> correct PMPI call which usually is the same prefix (either '_f08', >>> '_f', '__' etc.) as the MPI call it is in. A mapping to matching C >>> functions (as most tools do it now) is not possible due to problems >>> with calling conventions for callback routines. >> >> As far as I know our wrappers call the C routines, because we jump >> through all sorts of hoops to get a proper Fortran to C conversion and >> back. So in this regard, we need to fix this. Interestingly this has not >> popped up yet. > > I agree - this is remarkable. > >> >> If we write Fortran wrappers in Fortran, how would a Fortran wrapper >> compiled with Fortran 77 have to call the C measurement code inside the >> wrapper? If the Fortran compiler implicitly adds underscores to the >> calls, do I have to provide a special Fortran interface to my >> measurement system then? > > That is a question for the Fortran experts. > >> >>> * Would the following solution work? All wrappers for Fortran are written >>> in Fortran instead of C. >>> [...] >>> For every MPI function, there are 6 or 8 variants and all of them >>> need to be provided by a tool. This would probably mean that we have >>> to compile wrappers with all three calling conventions (mpif.h, use >>> mpi_f and use mpi_f08) and then link them together? >> >> Don't we need to compile with all three calling conventions on all >> possible compilers on a given system? > > Also, here, I think the Fortran experts need to weigh in. > >> >> We currently provide all 4 name-mangling schemes with every install of >> Scalasca, because we had some issues with applications using two >> different Fortran compilers for different sub-modules. (This came up in >> a project some years back, and ever since then we provide all schemes in >> the same library and it seems to work.) >> >>> * As discussed at the forum, if we want to keep our tools in C (which is >>> probably still the easier and better option), we need to know the symbols >>> on the "p" side and we need a portable way to figure this out. We talked >>> about the solution of two groups of routines - one for which we have _f08 >>> symbols for one for which we don't. Rolf, how will you add this to the >>> standard, in particular how will you form those groups. >> >> I started to get some doubts about this approach. One of the issues was >> that some choice-buffer routines had names longer than the proposed >> limit. So they need to be mangled differently, especially, their symbol >> needs to be shortened. And as I understood it, the current idea is to >> leave it to the MPI implementation to define the shortened name. > > I thought that was just for the argument checking in mpif.h and that we decided to not support this. Are there more locations were the names are too long? > >> >> It is one thing, finding out which suffix is used. Finding how function >> names are mangled without any form of restricting to possible schemes >> seems to be another ball game? >> >> Am I missing something? > > Yes, if we do have to shorten names, I agree - I think, though, we got around the issue, or did we not? > >> >> I think, as it was pointed out in Santorini with the Fortran Bindings in >> general, we (or at least I) don't have enough Fortran expertise to think >> this through all to the end and consider all implications. I think it >> would be a great benefit to have people of the Fortran WG to join on the >> call on Monday. I hope this is possible. > > Yes, that would be great - all are cc-ed. > > Martin > > >> >> Cheers, >> Marc-Andre >> -- >> Marc-Andre Hermanns >> German Research School for >> Simulation Sciences GmbH >> c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming >> 52056 Aachen | Germany >> >> Tel +49 241 80 99753 >> Fax +49 241 80 6 99753 >> Web www.grs-sim.de >> >> Members: Forschungszentrum Jï¿½lich GmbH | RWTH Aachen University >> Registered in the commercial register of the local court of >> Dï¿½ren (Amtsgericht Dï¿½ren) under registration number HRB 5268 >> Registered office: Jï¿½lich >> Executive board: Prof. Marek Behr Ph.D. | Dr. Norbert Drewes >> > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] Questions on the F2008 profiling interface issues
by Martin Schulz 01 Oct '11

01 Oct '11

Hi Marc-Andre, On Sep 30, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marc-Andre Hermanns wrote: > Martin, > >> I was in Dresden the last few days (visiting the Vampir group, in >> particular Andreas Knuepfer and Tobias Hilbrich who are responsible for >> their MPI wrappers) and we sat down to talk about the issues around the >> profiling interface in ticket #229. >> >> Here is a quick summary with a few questions that came up: >> >> * With the new Fortran symbol naming variants, there are 6 or 8 or 10 >> versions for every MPI subroutine. Tools could intercept all versions by >> providing own symbols for all versions. > > If it is clear which name the symbols have, additional symbol names > should be easy to generate, so at this stage I think it doesn't matter > much, whether we have 6, 8, or 10 different schemes to cover. Right? I agree - as long as we can generate a full list of names, we can intercept them all. Adding wrappers shouldn't be a problem. > >> Now the problem: Within the wrapper function a tool needs to call the >> correct PMPI call which usually is the same prefix (either '_f08', >> '_f', '__' etc.) as the MPI call it is in. A mapping to matching C >> functions (as most tools do it now) is not possible due to problems >> with calling conventions for callback routines. > > As far as I know our wrappers call the C routines, because we jump > through all sorts of hoops to get a proper Fortran to C conversion and > back. So in this regard, we need to fix this. Interestingly this has not > popped up yet. I agree - this is remarkable. > > If we write Fortran wrappers in Fortran, how would a Fortran wrapper > compiled with Fortran 77 have to call the C measurement code inside the > wrapper? If the Fortran compiler implicitly adds underscores to the > calls, do I have to provide a special Fortran interface to my > measurement system then? That is a question for the Fortran experts. > >> * Would the following solution work? All wrappers for Fortran are written >> in Fortran instead of C. >> [...] >> For every MPI function, there are 6 or 8 variants and all of them >> need to be provided by a tool. This would probably mean that we have >> to compile wrappers with all three calling conventions (mpif.h, use >> mpi_f and use mpi_f08) and then link them together? > > Don't we need to compile with all three calling conventions on all > possible compilers on a given system? Also, here, I think the Fortran experts need to weigh in. > > We currently provide all 4 name-mangling schemes with every install of > Scalasca, because we had some issues with applications using two > different Fortran compilers for different sub-modules. (This came up in > a project some years back, and ever since then we provide all schemes in > the same library and it seems to work.) > >> * As discussed at the forum, if we want to keep our tools in C (which is >> probably still the easier and better option), we need to know the symbols >> on the "p" side and we need a portable way to figure this out. We talked >> about the solution of two groups of routines - one for which we have _f08 >> symbols for one for which we don't. Rolf, how will you add this to the >> standard, in particular how will you form those groups. > > I started to get some doubts about this approach. One of the issues was > that some choice-buffer routines had names longer than the proposed > limit. So they need to be mangled differently, especially, their symbol > needs to be shortened. And as I understood it, the current idea is to > leave it to the MPI implementation to define the shortened name. I thought that was just for the argument checking in mpif.h and that we decided to not support this. Are there more locations were the names are too long? > > It is one thing, finding out which suffix is used. Finding how function > names are mangled without any form of restricting to possible schemes > seems to be another ball game? > > Am I missing something? Yes, if we do have to shorten names, I agree - I think, though, we got around the issue, or did we not? > > I think, as it was pointed out in Santorini with the Fortran Bindings in > general, we (or at least I) don't have enough Fortran expertise to think > this through all to the end and consider all implications. I think it > would be a great benefit to have people of the Fortran WG to join on the > call on Monday. I hope this is possible. Yes, that would be great - all are cc-ed. Martin > > Cheers, > Marc-Andre > -- > Marc-Andre Hermanns > German Research School for > Simulation Sciences GmbH > c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming > 52056 Aachen | Germany > > Tel +49 241 80 99753 > Fax +49 241 80 6 99753 > Web www.grs-sim.de > > Members: Forschungszentrum Jï¿½lich GmbH | RWTH Aachen University > Registered in the commercial register of the local court of > Dï¿½ren (Amtsgericht Dï¿½ren) under registration number HRB 5268 > Registered office: Jï¿½lich > Executive board: Prof. Marek Behr Ph.D. | Dr. Norbert Drewes > ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0