[Mpi-21] AUTHORS+REVIEWERS - Draft Apr. 12, 2008

[Adam Moody]

Hi Torsten,
I've marked most of your edits with DON2, which means I've made the 
change as you recommended.  However, there are a number for which I'm 
not clear on what you meant.  These are marked with "vv", which points 
to the question following.  Would you please clarify these items?  As a 
reference, let's use the following document for page and line numbers:
    
http://www.hlrs.de/organization/par/services/models/mpi/mpi21/doc/mpi-report.pdf
-Adam

Torsten Hoefler wrote:

>Hi Rolf, Adam,
>I understand from your mail Rolf, that Adam lost his write token and
>that only you can apply the changes/comments to the chapter (in my case
>the collectives chapter). Thus, I'll send my review results to the list
>instead the chapter author directly. My general comment: very well done
>Adam :).
>
>I have some smaller editing remarks and also found some small errors and
>clarification possibilities (see below).
>
>  
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012
>>          All references are based on MPI-2.1 Draft Apr. 12, 2008
>>ww.a  __  pnnn.ll text   (with nnn=page number and ll=line number
>>          text continued
>>          ...
>>ww.b  __  pnnn.ll text ... and so on (total line length <= 82 characters.)
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    
>>
>Ok, here my remarks, many of them (especially EDIT or CLAR) can probably
>be ignored, but I thought I'd bring it up:
>
>general: the line numbers are completely out of sync ... it's hard to
>classify a line that is between two line numbers.
>
>5.a DON2  EDIT p129.19-41 "all group members" vs. "all members of a group"
>                    should use the same phrasing (parallel structure)
>  
>
>5.b DON2  NICE p129.41    Reference to 5.11 not 5.11.1
>5.c DON2  EDIT p129.45    remove "," (comma)
>5.d DON2  EDIT p129.43    replace "the same" with "a"
>5.e DON2  EDIT p129.45    "the same group" in line 43 conflicts with "group or
>                    groups"
>  
>
There is not really a clear way to state this.  As Rejeev also 
suggested, the definition of "matching" is not well understood here.  
Perhaps the best option is to remove this statement altogether, since it 
is defined in more detail in the "Specifics" sections for intra- and 
inter-communicators.  I'll remove the statement, but the idea of 
"matching" parameters in collective calls should be discussed in the 
Forum.  Thus, the following lines:
    "A collective operation is executed by having all processes in the 
same group call the
    communication routine, with matching arguments. One of the key 
arguments is a communicator ..."
are now written more simply as:
    "One of the key arguments in a call to a collective routine is a 
communicator ..."

>5.f   vv  CLAR p131.1     add "with exceptions stated in the following" to first
>                    sentence
>  
>
Do you mean exceptions to the matching of datatypes in sender and 
receiver?  Are there exceptions to this?

>5.g DON2  EDIT p131.4     no linebreak (Chapter~\ref{...})
>5.h *NO*  ERR  p131.31    replace "will" with "might"
>  
>
I'd leave this in, since it was the original wording for this version of 
the standard.  I think there is still an escape here already in the "(or 
a similar mechanism)" phrase.

>5.i   vv  ERR  p132.      "special communicator must be created" this is wrong,
>                    later (in the bcast section) it is stated differently 
>                    ... I would just remove this part of the advice or say
>                    "might be created" (see Bcast advice)
>  
>
Could you specify the particular advice via page and line numbers?  It's 
not clear to me what you are referring to here.

>5.j   vv CLAR p131.37    add "depending on the operation performed after last
>                    sentence (right now it sounds like ths user is free to
>                    choose which argument to replace)
>  
>
Do you mean p132.27 instead?  The recommendation doesn't seem to line up 
with the document I have.

>5.k *NO*  EDIT p133.32    "a" -> "an"?
>  
>
I think "a" is actually appropriate here.

>5.l DON2  EDIT p136.22    start sentence with "If the communicator is an
>                    intracommunicator" as for all the other operations,
>                    remove "for intracommunicators" in line 23
>5.m DON2  EDIT p136.24    replace "," by "and"
>5.n   ??  EDIT p136.26-31 this paragraph is redundant (it's all already stated
>                    earlier, do we want this redundancy in the standard?)
>  
>
I agree that it is redundant, but this emphasis in a particular case may 
be useful to get the point across.  I'd leave it up to the Forum to vote 
on this.

>5.o *NO*  EDIT p136.32    move sentence to end of the previous paragraph (line
>                    25)
>  
>
Although, this text may read more smoothly with this edit, it breaks 
symmetry on where the "in place" statements are placed in other 
descriptions.

>5.p *NO*  EDIT p136.37    "data is braodcasted" (not braodcast)
>  
>
Left as "broadcast" per discussion between Bronis and Torsten which 
concluded that "broadcast" is recommended.

>5.q DON2  CLAR p136.38-39 the text talks about send and receive buffer argument,
>                    but bcast only has a single buffer argument ...
>  
>
>5.r   ??  CLAR p136.38    "must be consistent with the ..." what does the word
>                    consistent mean in this context? This seems undefined.
>                    I think it means that the signature (size, count) is
>                    the same. We should say this explicitely. The same
>                    term "consistent" is used in all following operations
>                    (I'm not going to add it again)
>  
>
I agree that "consistent" is not defined, however, I'm not sure what it 
means either.  I think this change should be left to the Forum.

>5.s DON2  EDIT p138.3     write "all processes" instead of "process i" (i is
>                    never defined)
>  
>
I changed this to:
    "The type signature of sendcount, sendtype on each process must be 
equal ..."

>5.t *NO*  ERR p139.47     data is not necessarily placed in rank order. The
>                    order is freely definably by the user in the displs[]
>                    array. Or does the standard enforce the displs[] array
>                    to preserve order? We might want to run this through
>                    the forum (or just ignore it?)?
>  
>
I think the "that is, ..." portion of this statement clarifies the meaning.

>5.u DON2  CLAR p136.42    add "The examples in this section are using
>                    intracommunicators." as in p140.27
>5.v   ??  EDIT p147.48    the last paragraph is redundant (has been stated
>                    before for all collectives)
>  
>
Again, I'll leave this redundancy question to the Forum.

>5.w DON2  EDIT p157.35    why a separate subsection for Alltoallw but not for
>                    Alltoallv? I'd remove this subsection
>5.x DON2  EDIT p157.36    the first two sentences should go to rationale (we
>                    don't need to rationalize the operation in the
>                    description)
>  
>
I missed this piece in the original rewrite, and so this section still 
required significant editting.  I've made it look and feel more like the 
AlltoallV definition.

>5.y DON2  EDIT p161.13    replace "Reduce" by "Reduction" or "Operations for
>                    MPI_Reduce"
>5.z   vv  EDIT p162.13    state that the example is in Fortran (it's said for
>                    all the C examples before)
>  
>
I don't see examples in this chapter that say they are in C either, or 
at least, there are many that don't.

>5.aa DON2  EDIT p163.10-12 I think we don't need to backref to MPI-1 here if we
>                     consider MPI-2.1 a complete standard.
>  
>
Ok, I've been convinced to remove this.

>5.ab DON2  CLAR p163.20    replace "bit" by "numeric" or "integer"
>5.ac *NO*  EDIT p167.41    doubled sentence "The order of ..."
>  
>
The sentence is not technically duplicated.  I'll leave this text as is 
now, although, I agree that this paragraph could be rewritten to state 
its point more clearly.

>5.ad DON2  CLAR p169.2     add: (without supporting the "in place" option)
>5.ae DON2  ERR  p169.16-20 the example will deadlock if root == groupsize-1. Has
>                     been there for a while :). Use Irecv/Wait instead.
>5.af   vv  EDIT p171.48    state that example is in Fortran
>  
>
Again, not sure if this needs to be done?

>5.ag DON2  ERR  p174.12-20 this rationale should be erased completely because it
>                     explains (for MPI-1), why only the inclusive is supported ;-)
>5.ah DON2  ERR  p175.20    erase the last sentence in rationale, we don't need
>                     this anymore (is MPI-1)
>5.ai   ??  EDIT p177.48    move orphaned Example header to next page (might
>                     change after edits though -> check chapter for orphans)
>5.aj   ?? EDIT p179.24    the font suddenly changes? (sans-serif)
>  
>
Haven't checked these two in the recent document.  I suppose some of the 
checks will need to wait until the final copy is available for reading.

>5.ak   ?? CLAR p179.27    maybe we should add: "and to ensure appropriate
>                     matching (for deterministic behavior)
>  
>
I'll leave this one to the Forum.

>Best,
>  Torsten
>
>  
>



* 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-21/attachments/20080418/9526f4d7/attachment.html>