May 2013 - mpiwg-tools - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi3-tools] MPIT 3.1: look up by name
by Kathryn Mohror 29 May '13

29 May '13

Hi all, Here is the next version of the look up by name function for discussion on tomorrow's call: MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INDEX(name, name_len, cvar_index) IN name IN name_len OUT cvar_index MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INDEX is a convenience function for retrieving the index of a control variable given a known variable name. The name and name_len parameters are provided by the caller, and cvar_index is returned by the MPI implementation. The name parameter is a C style NULL terminated string. The name_len parameter is the length of name plus one for the NULL termination character. This routine returns MPI_SUCCESS on success and returns MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_NAME if name does not match the name of any control variable provided by the implementation at the time of the call. Rationale: This routine is provided to enable fast retrieval of control variables by a tool, assuming it knows the name of the variable it is looking for. The number of variables exposed by the implementation can change over time, so it is not possible for the tool to simply iterate over the list of variables once at initialization. Although using MPI implementation specific variable names is not portable across MPI implementations, tool developers may choose to take this route for lower overhead at runtime because the tool won't have to loop over the entire set of variables to find a specific one. MPI_T_PVAR_GET_INDEX similar Kathryn On May 2, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > Hi Bronis, all, > > We discussed this on the WG call today. I put the notes from the discussion on the wiki page. The gist of the conversation was that yes, it is a convenience function, but it may be worth having. The reason is that a tool can't simply iterate over the variables once and be done with it. The number of variables can increase at runtime, so a tool may have to iterate more than once. > > We settled on moving forward with a version of the routine that doesn't duplicate "get_info" but returns only the index and seeing how it plays out. > > Kathryn > > On May 2, 2013, at 6:19 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > >> >> I agree with Jeff that this request is a convenience function. >> Not only do I think he is right about it not needing to be >> performant and that an application could clearly do it >> itself but any more efficient implementation could be replicated >> at the application layer. For example, the tree-based approach >> could be done with one pass over the list that builds the tree. >> >> On Thu, 2 May 2013, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: >> >>> On May 1, 2013, at 1:06 AM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>>> Is this just a convenience function? >>>> >>>> An implementation could store all variables in a tree (or some other more efficient structure) eliminating the need for a loop in favor of a lower complexity lookup algorithm. How severe this problem is, is a different question. >>> >>> I don't think that efficiency is the issue here -- even for an MPI implementation with thousands of cvars, a loop over them would take microseconds, at most. More specifically: I was not under the impression that cvar access needed to be performant. >>> >>> I guess my point is that: regardless of mechanism, this functionality can definitely be implemented in the user application with the current MPIT APIs. Moving this functionality to *inside* MPIT is a convenience. >>> >>> I'm not saying this is a good or bad idea -- I'm just making sure we all understand what is being asked. :-) >>> >>>> If we want to go for such a function, I wonder, though, if we should return all the arguments from GET_INFO or just the index (that you can then use get the rest of the information). This would could both keep the document (we are mentioning the GET_INFO functions a lot) and the implementations (only one pair of routines with such complex prototypes) simpler. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've started to work on 3.1 items. The first one is to allow the look up of variables by name instead of having to iterate through all variables until you find the one you want (assuming you know the name in advance). What do people think of this for supporting that functionality: >>>>>> >>>>>> MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO_NAMED >>>>>> IN name >>>>>> OUT cvar_index >>>>>> OUT verbosity >>>>>> OUT datatype >>>>>> OUT enumtype >>>>>> OUT desc >>>>>> INOUT desc_len >>>>>> OUT bind >>>>>> OUT scope >>>>>> >>>>>> MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO_NAMED behaves similarly to MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO except that the lookup is done by control variable name instead of its index. All restrictions and requirements for MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO are the same for MPI_GET_CVAR_INFO_NAMED except that the cvar_index is now returned from the function, and name is an input. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then define MPI_T_PVAR_GET_INFO_NAMED in a similar fashion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? Objections? >>>>>> >>>>>> Kathryn >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________________________________________ >>>>>> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 >>>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Mpi3-tools mailing list >>>>>> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>>>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Mpi3-tools mailing list >>>>> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm >>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mpi3-tools mailing list >>>> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Squyres >>> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mpi3-tools mailing list >>> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools > > ______________________________________________________________ > Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA > > > > ______________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

1 0

[Mpi3-tools] ticket 354 document
by Kathryn Mohror 29 May '13

29 May '13

Hi all, I've marked up a copy of the 3.0 standard showing the changes for ticket 354. It is attached. I plan on going over it on the call tomorrow so we can make sure I didn't miss anything. Kathryn ______________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

1 0

[Mpi3-tools] Next telecon May 30
by Kathryn Mohror 29 May '13

29 May '13

Hi all, This is a reminder of our telecon tomorrow May 30 at 8:00 AM PDT, 11:00 AM EDT. As always, the link for joining the webex is on the wiki: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Tools Agenda: - Go over the agenda for the forum - Figure out webex times for WG sessions - MQS -- discussion about reading - ticket 354, go over document briefly - 3.1, look up by name - other items? Fortran? Talk to you tomorrow! Kathryn ______________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] join WG sessions remotely?
by Kathryn Mohror 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi all, To be clear (because I wasn't!), I was referring to the tools sessions at the physical forum meeting in San Jose. Kathryn On May 28, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > Hi all, > > Does anyone want to join in on any of the tools sessions remotely? If so, please let me know so that we can get it arranged. We will use webex, so we can share documents and video. I find that much more productive than just joining by phone only. > > Kathryn > ______________________________________________________________ > Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools ______________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] [Mpi-forum] Did we screw up the const bindings in MPI-3?
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 28 May '13

28 May '13

Yes. On May 28, 2013, at 4:31 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > That sounds great - this is also what we wanted to go over on Wednesday afternoon, right? > > Martin > > > On May 28, 2013, at 7:26 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > wrote: > >> Be aware that Craig Rasmussen is working on a Fortran bindings generator tool -- suitable for both MPI implementations and tools that need to intercept MPI functions -- in python. He's going to talk about it next week at the Forum meeting. >> >> >> On May 25, 2013, at 6:30 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marc-Andre, >>> >>> On May 25, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marc-Andre, >>>> >>>> Yes, we probably should move this discussion to tools from now on since it's getting into more technical details. Please send the information about your wrapper generator to both me and Martin. >>> >>> Yes, please do. >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Kathryn >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I haven't tried it with PnMPI (I'll try to do that before the meeting >>>>>> in San Jose), but we scan the mpi.h file. We have found this >>>>>> generally to be a good idea, since not always all routines are >>>>>> implemented and the tool works for MPI-1 and MPI-2 alike. >>>>> >>>>> In Scalasca and Score-P, we inspect the MPI library for the presence each PMPI symbol and then we only create wrappers for those calls where we found valid PMPI symbols. (When the prototypes are mangle, this would definitely need to be adapted.) >>> >>> I remember this now - this obviously serves the same purpose as our parsing for what we wanted to achieve. >>> >>>>> The prototypes are predefined in an XML file. There, we also define additional attributes, such as whether a parameter in "input, output, or both". >>> >>> We were thinking about something like as well - add semantics somewhere so more tools code can be generated. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> From a tools community point of view it would be good to come with >>>>>> such a wrapper generator once and then have everyone use it, which >>>>>> would not only eliminate this issue, but also make the Fortran issue >>>>>> much simpler. >>>>> >>>>> As different tools groups might have different interests, it would be quite an undertaking. Still, it would definitely be good not to reinvent the wheel several times. >>> >>> The latter is why I would like to see if we can do this - the C issues are minor, but the Fortran part is getting too complicated to re-invent the wheel. Also, based on all the discussions that we had I am starting to wonder if anyone of us got right for all cases. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> The tools WG is planing to have a discussion in San Jose on whether >>>>>> we can create such a wrapper infrastructure that actually produces >>>>>> Fortran implementations along with the C implementations, which may >>>>>> make the whole symbol naming issue unnecessary. Adding a C version to >>>>>> such a wrapper system would be trivial. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, I won't be in San Jose. Maybe I'll prime someone (Martin? Kathryn?) with what our wrapper generator can and cannot do, as input into the discussion? >>> >>> Sounds good. >>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Marc-Andre >>>>> >>>>> PS: Should we move this discussion to the tools mailing list? >>> >>> Good idea - done. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Marc-Andre Hermanns >>>>> German Research School for >>>>> Simulation Sciences GmbH >>>>> c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming >>>>> 52062 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 | Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________ >>>> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 >>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm >>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mpi3-tools mailing list >>> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> > > ________________________________________________________________________ > 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

[Mpi3-tools] join WG sessions remotely?
by Kathryn Mohror 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi all, Does anyone want to join in on any of the tools sessions remotely? If so, please let me know so that we can get it arranged. We will use webex, so we can share documents and video. I find that much more productive than just joining by phone only. Kathryn ______________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] [Mpi-forum] Did we screw up the const bindings in MPI-3?
by Schulz, Martin 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi Jeff, That sounds great - this is also what we wanted to go over on Wednesday afternoon, right? Martin On May 28, 2013, at 7:26 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > Be aware that Craig Rasmussen is working on a Fortran bindings generator tool -- suitable for both MPI implementations and tools that need to intercept MPI functions -- in python. He's going to talk about it next week at the Forum meeting. > > > On May 25, 2013, at 6:30 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > >> Hi Marc-Andre, >> >> On May 25, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marc-Andre, >>> >>> Yes, we probably should move this discussion to tools from now on since it's getting into more technical details. Please send the information about your wrapper generator to both me and Martin. >> >> Yes, please do. >> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Kathryn >>> >>>> >>>>> I haven't tried it with PnMPI (I'll try to do that before the meeting >>>>> in San Jose), but we scan the mpi.h file. We have found this >>>>> generally to be a good idea, since not always all routines are >>>>> implemented and the tool works for MPI-1 and MPI-2 alike. >>>> >>>> In Scalasca and Score-P, we inspect the MPI library for the presence each PMPI symbol and then we only create wrappers for those calls where we found valid PMPI symbols. (When the prototypes are mangle, this would definitely need to be adapted.) >> >> I remember this now - this obviously serves the same purpose as our parsing for what we wanted to achieve. >> >>>> The prototypes are predefined in an XML file. There, we also define additional attributes, such as whether a parameter in "input, output, or both". >> >> We were thinking about something like as well - add semantics somewhere so more tools code can be generated. >> >>>> >>>>> From a tools community point of view it would be good to come with >>>>> such a wrapper generator once and then have everyone use it, which >>>>> would not only eliminate this issue, but also make the Fortran issue >>>>> much simpler. >>>> >>>> As different tools groups might have different interests, it would be quite an undertaking. Still, it would definitely be good not to reinvent the wheel several times. >> >> The latter is why I would like to see if we can do this - the C issues are minor, but the Fortran part is getting too complicated to re-invent the wheel. Also, based on all the discussions that we had I am starting to wonder if anyone of us got right for all cases. >> >>>> >>>>> The tools WG is planing to have a discussion in San Jose on whether >>>>> we can create such a wrapper infrastructure that actually produces >>>>> Fortran implementations along with the C implementations, which may >>>>> make the whole symbol naming issue unnecessary. Adding a C version to >>>>> such a wrapper system would be trivial. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, I won't be in San Jose. Maybe I'll prime someone (Martin? Kathryn?) with what our wrapper generator can and cannot do, as input into the discussion? >> >> Sounds good. >> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Marc-Andre >>>> >>>> PS: Should we move this discussion to the tools mailing list? >> >> Good idea - done. >> >> Martin >> >> >>>> -- >>>> Marc-Andre Hermanns >>>> German Research School for >>>> Simulation Sciences GmbH >>>> c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming >>>> 52062 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 | Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 >>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm >> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] [Mpi-forum] Did we screw up the const bindings in MPI-3?
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 28 May '13

28 May '13

Be aware that Craig Rasmussen is working on a Fortran bindings generator tool -- suitable for both MPI implementations and tools that need to intercept MPI functions -- in python. He's going to talk about it next week at the Forum meeting. On May 25, 2013, at 6:30 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > Hi Marc-Andre, > > On May 25, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> > wrote: > >> Hi Marc-Andre, >> >> Yes, we probably should move this discussion to tools from now on since it's getting into more technical details. Please send the information about your wrapper generator to both me and Martin. > > Yes, please do. > >> >> Thanks! >> Kathryn >> >>> >>>> I haven't tried it with PnMPI (I'll try to do that before the meeting >>>> in San Jose), but we scan the mpi.h file. We have found this >>>> generally to be a good idea, since not always all routines are >>>> implemented and the tool works for MPI-1 and MPI-2 alike. >>> >>> In Scalasca and Score-P, we inspect the MPI library for the presence each PMPI symbol and then we only create wrappers for those calls where we found valid PMPI symbols. (When the prototypes are mangle, this would definitely need to be adapted.) > > I remember this now - this obviously serves the same purpose as our parsing for what we wanted to achieve. > >>> The prototypes are predefined in an XML file. There, we also define additional attributes, such as whether a parameter in "input, output, or both". > > We were thinking about something like as well - add semantics somewhere so more tools code can be generated. > >>> >>>> From a tools community point of view it would be good to come with >>>> such a wrapper generator once and then have everyone use it, which >>>> would not only eliminate this issue, but also make the Fortran issue >>>> much simpler. >>> >>> As different tools groups might have different interests, it would be quite an undertaking. Still, it would definitely be good not to reinvent the wheel several times. > > The latter is why I would like to see if we can do this - the C issues are minor, but the Fortran part is getting too complicated to re-invent the wheel. Also, based on all the discussions that we had I am starting to wonder if anyone of us got right for all cases. > >>> >>>> The tools WG is planing to have a discussion in San Jose on whether >>>> we can create such a wrapper infrastructure that actually produces >>>> Fortran implementations along with the C implementations, which may >>>> make the whole symbol naming issue unnecessary. Adding a C version to >>>> such a wrapper system would be trivial. >>> >>> Unfortunately, I won't be in San Jose. Maybe I'll prime someone (Martin? Kathryn?) with what our wrapper generator can and cannot do, as input into the discussion? > > Sounds good. > >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Marc-Andre >>> >>> PS: Should we move this discussion to the tools mailing list? > > Good idea - done. > > Martin > > >>> -- >>> Marc-Andre Hermanns >>> German Research School for >>> Simulation Sciences GmbH >>> c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming >>> 52062 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 | Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 >> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools -- 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] [Mpi-forum] Did we screw up the const bindings in MPI-3?
by Schulz, Martin 25 May '13

25 May '13

Hi Marc-Andre, On May 25, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Kathryn Mohror <kathryn(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > Hi Marc-Andre, > > Yes, we probably should move this discussion to tools from now on since it's getting into more technical details. Please send the information about your wrapper generator to both me and Martin. Yes, please do. > > Thanks! > Kathryn > >> >>> I haven't tried it with PnMPI (I'll try to do that before the meeting >>> in San Jose), but we scan the mpi.h file. We have found this >>> generally to be a good idea, since not always all routines are >>> implemented and the tool works for MPI-1 and MPI-2 alike. >> >> In Scalasca and Score-P, we inspect the MPI library for the presence each PMPI symbol and then we only create wrappers for those calls where we found valid PMPI symbols. (When the prototypes are mangle, this would definitely need to be adapted.) I remember this now - this obviously serves the same purpose as our parsing for what we wanted to achieve. >> The prototypes are predefined in an XML file. There, we also define additional attributes, such as whether a parameter in "input, output, or both". We were thinking about something like as well - add semantics somewhere so more tools code can be generated. >> >>> From a tools community point of view it would be good to come with >>> such a wrapper generator once and then have everyone use it, which >>> would not only eliminate this issue, but also make the Fortran issue >>> much simpler. >> >> As different tools groups might have different interests, it would be quite an undertaking. Still, it would definitely be good not to reinvent the wheel several times. The latter is why I would like to see if we can do this - the C issues are minor, but the Fortran part is getting too complicated to re-invent the wheel. Also, based on all the discussions that we had I am starting to wonder if anyone of us got right for all cases. >> >>> The tools WG is planing to have a discussion in San Jose on whether >>> we can create such a wrapper infrastructure that actually produces >>> Fortran implementations along with the C implementations, which may >>> make the whole symbol naming issue unnecessary. Adding a C version to >>> such a wrapper system would be trivial. >> >> Unfortunately, I won't be in San Jose. Maybe I'll prime someone (Martin? Kathryn?) with what our wrapper generator can and cannot do, as input into the discussion? Sounds good. >> >> Cheers, >> Marc-Andre >> >> PS: Should we move this discussion to the tools mailing list? Good idea - done. Martin >> -- >> Marc-Andre Hermanns >> German Research School for >> Simulation Sciences GmbH >> c/o Laboratory for Parallel Programming >> 52062 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 | Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > ______________________________________________________________ > Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs
by Anh Vo 24 May '13

24 May '13

Hi John, Many thanks for the feedbacks. I looked over all of them and I think I agreed with all of them, including the "Agree to disagree" on the hyphenation :-) (Actually I would like to see if there is any better way, perhaps I'll ask folks at the MPI forum for ideas on the end of line hyphenation and searching issues). I will incorporate all your suggested edits and check them in About the complaints about lack of examples and loosely language, I concur. I think we should get this passed, and immediately work in the pipeline on the 1.1 version to offer other improvements (such as OpenMPI's extension on multiple dlls lookup) and make it more useful by providing more examples. --Anh -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John DelSignore Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:22 PM To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs Hi Anh, Attached is my latest round of edits/comments. Overall, I think the document looks better than ever, though if I look at it with a critical eye, there is still much room for improvement. My basic complaints: * Lack of examples. * The language is a bit loose in many places and hedges a lot, using words like "should" and phrases like "the debugger will". * The descriptions of some functions are very sparse, and could stand further elaboration. Cheers, John D. Anh Vo wrote: > I've uploaded the PDF to the ticket and mailed the forum. IMO, the proposal is in very good shape after the last round of feedbacks. Changes from this point will mostly be spelling/grammar/clarification of a few things. Those changes will be applied following the Forum's procedural rules. > > --Anh > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anh Vo > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:07 AM > To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs > > Yes - I realized you missed the definition of "Image file" and I did > include its definition in the chap3.pdf file that I sent > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > DelSignore > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:03 AM > To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs > > Thanks. I accidentally missed the definition of "Image File" in my first email, which I think should be: > > 3.6 Image File > An image file is an executable or shared library file, which may contain symbol definitions needed by the MQD interface. > > And all of the later 3.x sections have to get renumbered, but I assume LaTex will do that for you automatically. > > Cheers, John D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anh Vo > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:26 PM > To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs > > Hi John, > I incorporated your edits into the current docs. Thank you! Attached > is the chapter 3 with the new layout (each definition has its own > section). Note that in the PDF I sent yesterday, each of the callback > function in the mqs_basic_callbacks, mqs_image_callbacks, and > mqs_process_callbacks also got it own subsection (based on Martin's > feedbacks) > > --Anh > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > DelSignore > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:58 AM > To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs > > Hi Anh, > > I've been working on the latest version of the document you sent last night, but I thought I'd send you my edits to the Definitions section as you requested. I copied/pasted the prose of the definitions below, which will also be included in the marked-up Word document (I'll try to finish that today and send it to you by COB EDT). > > I don't have strong feelings on the formatting or section layout of the definitions section, but I do think that each term we define should have its own "subsection" or be grouped separately. Below, I used the heading conventions used in the MPIR Process Acquisition document, and gave each definition its own subsection. > > More later... > > Cheers, John D > > -----------------------cut-here--------------------------- > > Chapter 3 > > Definitions > > 3.1 Shared Library > A shared library or shared object is a file that is intended to be shared by executable files and other shared libraries. Shared libraries may be relocated at runtime, and may be dynamically loaded at runtime. > > 3.2 Shared Object File > The term used on UNIX and UNIX-based systems to describe a shared library. > > 3.3 Dynamic-Link Library > The term used on Windows and OS/2 systems to describe a shared library. > > 3.4 Dynamically Loaded Library > A shared library that can be loaded and unloaded at runtime on request by calling dlopen, dlclose, dlsym on UNIX and UNIX-like systems, or LoadLibrary, FreeLibrary, GetProcAddress on Windows systems. Debuggers require the dynamic loading of the MQD shared library to provide MQD support. > > 3.5 DLL > An overloaded term that refers to either a dynamic-link library, dynamically loaded library, or shared library. > > 3.6 MPI Process > An MPI process, or simply "process" in the scope of this document, is defined to be an operating system (OS) process, which consists of an address space and a collection of execution contexts (threads or lightweight processes). The MPI process is part of the MPI application as described in the MPI standard. While the standard does not require that an MPI process be an OS process, this is a requirement for most debuggers and this interface was designed with that assumption. > > 3.7 Address Space > An address space is a region of memory that consists of executable code and data, and is partially composed of a collection of image files. The collection of image files may change at any point during the execution of the MPI process, and the image files may be relocated at runtime within the address space at the point they are loaded into memory. > > 3.8 "mqs_image" > An mqs_image, or sometimes simply referred to as an "image" in this document, is an abstract concept that represents the collection of image files loaded into the address space of the MPI process at any given time. The underlying object represented by an mqs_image is debugger implementation defined. In static execution environments, where shared libraries are not supported, an mqs_image might represent an executable image file. However, in dynamic execution environments, where shared libraries, dynamically loaded shared libraries, and runtime relocation of shared libraries are supported, an mqs_image might represent the collection of image files loaded into the address space of the MPI process at any given point in time. In this situation mqs_image might in fact represent the MPI process itself. > > 3.9 "Starter" Process Definition > The starter process is the process that is responsible for launching the MPI job. The starter process may be a separate process that is not part of the MPI application, or any MPI process may act as a starter process. By definition, the starter process contains functions, data structures, and symbol table information for the MPIR Process Acquisition Interface. See the MPIR Process Acquisition Interface for more details. > > 3.10 Host and Target Node Definitions > For the purposes of this document, the host node is defined to be the node running the tool process, and a target node is defined to be a node running the target application processes the tool is controlling. A target node might also be the host node; that is, the target application processes might be running on the same node as the tool process. > > -----------------------cut-here--------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anh Vo > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:49 PM > To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs > > Hi John, > Thanks for looking at the PDF. My purpose of sending the last iteration out is to get feedbacks on the definitions section, because it is quite important to agree on the terms that will be using for the rest of the documents. If I wait until I finish all my edits to send out and people do not agree on the terms, I have to go back and make a lot of edits and send out another PDF, so on and so forth, which would drag the process out a lot longer. Hopefully this is okay. And I would say that all the important edits are already there, the only thing left is to agree on the usage of mqs_image vs image and I'll go and make all the relevant edits. > > The searching issue is probably reader dependent. I do not have issue > finding the instance on Step 9 on page 7 using Foxit Reader (see > attached screenshot). I do not use Adobe Reader so I can't tell > whether it would experience the issue you mentioned. If we don't break > off the hyphenation, Latex will not know what to do with it and will > simply overflow the text on that line, which makes it look quite bad > (see attached screenshot) > > --Anh > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > DelSignore > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:52 PM > To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs > > Thanks Anh, I'll take a look at it, though I don't really want to do another meticulous review until you are completely done with your edits. > > One comment on the hyphenation issue... I think we should not allow identifiers in the interface to be hyphenated because it means that I cannot search for the identifier as a token. For example, do a text find in your PDF reader (Acrobat or whatever) for mqs_update_communicator_list in the PDF document. In my PDF readers, it does not find the occurrence of that identifier in step 9 on page 7. Part of the usefulness of these documents is that you can search them looking for identifier names. When they are hyphenated, that breaks that capability. I don't care as much if certain words used in the prose is hyphenated, as long as the words that someone might be inclined to search for in the document are not hyphenated. In a document like this, I can image that someone might want to search for words like "breakpoint", "communicator", "iterate", etc. > > Cheers, John D. > > > Anh Vo wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have updated the MQS draft incorporating most of John's feedbacks. >> There are still a few items here and there and I plan to get it done >> by the end of today so we can send it out to the forum before Friday >> noon as we promised. >> >> I'm sending this now since I need feedbacks on some of the new >> definitions provided in chapter 3. Please look at Chapter 3. Note >> that due to our definition of mqs_image, the document will use >> \emph{mqs_image} in place of image (this is one part that I will go >> through and make sure I change them). \variable{mqs_image} will be >> used when referring to the type mqs_image of the interface. >> >> >> >> --Anh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of >> *Kathryn Mohror >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:16 PM >> *To:* mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs >> >> >> >> Comments inline >> >> >> >> *From:* mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Kathryn >> Mohror >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:44 PM >> *To:* mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs >> >> >> >> Hi Ahn, >> >> >> >> comments inline: >> >> Page 2, Comment JD4 >> John's comments about lots of hyphenated identifiers at end of line. >> Some of it are artifacts of converting PDF -> Word, but I think this >> is a common (and widely accepted) problems of latex documents. So we >> will probably have to live with it unless there're some magic way to >> make it nicer. >> >> >> >> I searched the standard (with PDF viewer search) and didn't see any >> broken hyphenated identifiers at the ends of lines. I noted that in >> the standard type and function names are like so: MPI\_COMM\_WORLD >> while in MPIR and MQS they are like so: MPI\_\-COMM\_\-WORLD. If >> you remove the \- will it do the right thing? I am not a Latex guru >> so I don't know. >> >> [anhvo]: Yes, I think I mainly followed the practice of the latex in >> MPIR and put the \- there, it basically tells Latex it can break off >> the lines there. Not sure which one is more desirable? >> >> >> >> I don't care either way really, except I think it looks bad if words >> go past the end of the margin if LaTeX doesn't know what to do with >> the word. There's probably some magic to fix that but I don't know it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Page 9 (Page 14 in Word), Comment JD18 John recommended the formatted >> table similar to what the MPIR document had. For example: >> >> Char MPIR_dll_name[] >> Definition is required >> Definition is contained within the address space of the MPI process >> Variable is written by the MPI process, and read by the tool >> >> I thought I did ask about this in the conf call at some point (or >> maybe it was an email, I can't remember the exact time and place) and >> we agreed that we would not be using that format because many people >> in the forum thought it was weird looking. >> >> >> >> Well, my opinion is that it should be consistent with what is in MPIR >> since it's supposed to be part of the same document. I don't >> remember the 'weird looking' comment, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone made it. >> >> [anhvo] I think Jeff mentioned this in the scanned PDF he sent back >> to me. And I agreed with Jeff so I removed it. I might be in the >> minority but I don't necessarily agree that we should have similar >> format with the MPIR Document. They're both side documents but >> they're quite different. In MPIR there are many variables so it's >> quite important to mention where they should stay and who is writing, >> reading it. In MQS we separate callbacks by debugger and DLL so it's >> quite clear who should define what >> >> >> >> Maybe a compromise is to put this sort of information at the top of >> each section.subsection that defines a set of variables? You already >> say it in the text, but pulling it out somehow may be helpful to >> people new to the interface. It's just an idea... I'm not married to it. >> >> >> >> Page 15 (Page 21 in Word),Comment JD26 Should we include semicolon at >> the end of the typedef definition? When I first created the document, >> I also debated a bit between this. I ended up following the style of >> the MPI standard where it lists the C declaration without any ; I'm >> fine either way, but would like to hear others' opinions on this. >> >> >> >> I think the standard does use ; . At least I didn't see any -- did I >> miss what you mean? >> >> [anhvo]: The standard does not put semicolon after a C definition. >> Randomly picking: page 38, C definition of MPI_BSend: >> >> int MPI_Bsend(...) (no semicolon at the end) >> >> >> >> Oh, yes I see what you mean. Okay, given that I would vote for no ; >> >> >> >> Kathryn >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for your hard work Ahn! >> >> Kathryn >> >> >> >> >> I'm leaving for lunch now. More comments after I'm back. In the >> meantime, if folks can comments on what I've sent so far, that'd be >> great!! >> >> Thanks >> Anh >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Anh Vo >> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:10 AM >> To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs >> >> The definitions John provide look great for me. Unless there are >> other opinions, I will use those. >> >> --Anh >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ahn, Dong H. >> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:54 AM >> To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs >> >> Hi John, >> >> This works for me and should clarify a few things in the current draft. >> >> Best, >> Dong >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of John >> DelSignore >> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:55 AM >> To: mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs >> >> I prefer to not muddy up the "standard definitions" (or maybe >> "common-sense definitions") of commonly used term, such as "image >> file", to make them conform to the MQD interface. Instead, I like to >> define the MQD typedefs in terms of the standard definitions. So, >> WRT to the document, I think we should include the following >> definitions: >> >> * An "image file" is an executable or shared library file, that may >> contain symbol definitions needed by the MQD interface. >> >> * An "MPI process" consists of an "address space" and a collection >> of execution contexts (threads or lightweight processes). >> >> * An "address space" is a region of memory that consists of executable >> code and data, and is partially composed of a collection of image >> files. The collection of image files may change at any point during >> the execution of the MPI process, and image files may be relocated >> at runtime within the address space at the point they are loaded >> into memory. >> >> Then we can say: >> >> * An "mqs_image" is an abstract concept that represents the collection >> of image files loaded into the address space of the MPI process at any >> given time, and is debugger implementation defined. In static >> execution environments, where shared libraries are not supported, an >> mqs_image can represent an executable image file. However, in dynamic >> execution environments, where shared libraries, dynamically loaded >> shared libraries, and runtime relocation of shared libraries are >> supported, an mqs_image should represent the collection of image >> files loaded into the address space of the MPI process at any given >> point in time; in this situation, mqs_image may in fact represent >> the MPI process itself. >> >> Cheers, John D. >> >> >> Anh Vo wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Kathryn for starting up the discussion. >> >> >> >> I'll start with my existing definition of mqs_image in the document, >> which definitely is not adequate. >> >> >> >> Existing definition: >> >> An image is an executable file that was loaded into memory when >> >> a process is started. For SIMD-style programs, all MPI processes >> have >> >> the same image. For MIMD-style programs, MPI processes might have >> >> different images. >> >> >> >> Dong's comments: >> >> The definition of "Image" isn't all that rigorous here. I think this >> creates some confusion somewhere down this document. Is an image >> really an executable file? Which typically means the base >> executable or does this refer to both the based executable and DSOs >> being loaded into the process address space? Though it sounds >> hair-splitting, even the SPMD remark, the statement is only true if >> the image is defined to be the base executable. >> >> >> >> John's comments: >> >> I think we should be more general with the term "image" to mean >> executable or shared library. The reason is that we do not want to >> require symbols to reside in the executable. We should allow symbols >> to reside in shared libraries. >> >> Also, I think we need to define the "address space" of a process, >> and an "image list" as a collection of image files that have been >> loaded in the address space, and possibly relocated at runtime. >> >> >> >> I think I agree with both comments. Image should not refer to a >> single executable image (a.out or a.exe), but rather the base >> executable and the shared libraries that were loaded into the >> process address space. >> >> >> >> So how about this new definition: >> >> An image represents the executable (e.g., a.out) and the collection >> of dynamically loaded libraries that were loaded into the process >> address space. >> >> >> >> --Anh >> >> *From:* mpi3-tools-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of >> *Kathryn Mohror >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:27 PM >> *To:* mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Mpi3-tools] latest draft of mqs >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> Thank you for the extensive feedback and help with the document! I'm >> sure you will get the 'nod' you referred to on page 1 :-) >> >> >> >> For the definition of mqs_image, I agree that it needs work. Dong >> Ahn also mentioned that it needed to be more rigorously defined. >> However if possible, I think it would be beneficial if we could at >> least start the conversation before next week so that we have a >> better chance of having it nailed down in advance of the next meeting. >> >> >> >> So, that said -- does anyone want to take a first stab at a >> definition to get us started? >> >> >> >> Kathryn >> >> >> >> On May 21, 2013, at 2:18 PM, John DelSignore >> <John.DelSignore(a)roguewave.com <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Attached are my edits and comments on the MPI Message Queue >> document. Anh provided me with a Word document generated from the >> LaTex, so the formatting is funky in some places. I enabled change >> tracking in Word before making my edits, and I added many comments >> to the document in places where I think we have more work to do. >> Unfortunately, I think the changes might be somewhat extensive. >> >> The volume of edits and comments aside, I think Anh did a great job! >> The first draft of the document closely reflects the 10+ year-old >> description of the interface pretty well. Unfortunately, the >> original interface has some problem that we need to resolve, most >> critically, we have to resolve how to describe the concept of >> "mqs_image". We can talk about this during the next concall. >> >> Cheers, John D. >> >> >> Anh Vo wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As mentioned on the tool WG call today, I'm re-sending the >> latest draft. >> Feedbacks are appreciated. We'll send this one out to the wider >> audience >> on Tuesday 5/21 to meet the requirement for first reading in >> June >> >> >> >> --Anh >> >> <MPI-MQD-JVD-2013-05-17.doc>_______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]>, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> <msgq.pdf>_______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov >> <mailto:[email protected]>, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mpi3-tools mailing list >> Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov >> <mailto:[email protected]>, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-tools mailing list > Mpi3-tools(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools >

1 0