[Mpi-22] MPI_INIT assertions
Supalov, Alexander
alexander.supalov at [hidden]
Tue May 6 06:26:03 CDT 2008
Dear Dick,
Thanks. What about passing more verbose information to and from an MPI
implementation? Say, eager threshold value, if it's meaningful? There
are many less controversial examples, for example, to let the caller
know how many processes are placed onto the node, etc. Simple assertions
won't work in this case.
Back to assertions. I thought we might consider
MPI_Initialized_subset(*flag,required,*provided) or something. Setting
"required" to 0 would return the set of provided assertions in
"provided". Setting "required" to something else will also set the
"flag" to true or false, depending on whether there's a match.
The special MPI_Init_subset(*argc,***argv,required,*provided) would
complement this.
Regarding 32 bits, let's count (I'm taking the joint list from the
subset proposal that includes your earlier points):
0,1,2,3 - MPI_THREAD_SINGLE, FUNNELED, SERIALIZED, MULTIPLE
0x00000004 - No dynamic process support
0x00000008 - No file I/O
0x00000010 - No one-sided ops
0x00000020 - No communicator & group management
0x00000040 - No non-blocking communication
0x00000080 - No message cancellation
0x00000100 - Persistent ops on both sides
0x00000200 - No heterogeneity
0x00000400 - No derived datatypes (especially those with holes)
0x00000800 - No MPI_ANY_SOURCE
0x00001000 - No message tagging
0x00002000 - No reduction order
0x00004000 - No eager buffering
0x00008000 - No mixed request types in wait/test
We have 16 bits left. Note that there may be some predefined masks for
well defined combinations of the above (e.g., MPI-1 = no dynamic
processes, no file I/O, no threads, etc.).
Best regards.
Alexander
________________________________
From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Richard
Treumann
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:53 PM
To: MPI 2.2
Subject: [Mpi-22] MPI_INIT assertions
I changed the subject to be meaningful - it had been "Re: [Mpi-22]
mpi-22 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 7"
I do think this proposal is within the scope of the MPI 2.2 rules so I
am pleased to hear this is being considered.
I am 100% convinced that a query function should be part of this
proposal, probably with 2 query flavors. One flavor of the query would
respond with the set of assertions the application MPI_INIT_xxx call had
provided and another would respond with the set of assertions the MPI
implementation is actually exploiting.
One library author may decide he will use if/else logic based on how the
MPI implementation will behave. The application may assert MPI_NO_yyy
but if the MPI implementation does not exploit MPI_NO_yyy then the
library can still use the code that depends on yyy. Another library
author may depend unconditionally on yyy. On an MPI implementation that
does not exploit MPI_NO_yyy he may want to issue a warning that
assertion MPI_NO_yyy is non-portable but let the job run. On one that
does exploit MPI_NO_yyy he would abort the job. Or, he may decide to
simply abort any job that asserts MPI_NO_yyy to avoid having the library
suddenly quit working when the customer upgrades to an MPI
implementation that does exploit MPI_NO_yyy.
I think 32 assertions is probably more than enough
Even a handful of defined assertions can raise testing costs. For simple
cases like MPI_NO_ANY_SOURCE it is easy for a user to judge whether a
piece of code is OK but if we begin to add subtle or narrow semantic
assertions it gets harder. Some library providers will be tempted to say
"I cannot proof read and test my code to a degree that will allow me to
accept 28 specific assertions and forbid 4. I will simply forbid every
subtle assertion I cannot afford to test."
I predict that for large applications developed by teams and for
community open source efforts the design leads will consider requiring
that all parts be written to live within a few carefully chosen
assertions. The design leads will not want to provide a list of 26
subtle or narrow assertions and require that everyone respect all 26 in
the code they contribute.
Many distinct assertions also could become a big test cost for MPI
implementors and customers who must qualify an MPI implementation before
trusting their business to it. If there were 64 or more assertions, how
would a tester decide what combinations of assertions must be tested and
then create suitable test cases?
Dick
Dick Treumann - MPI Team/TCEM
IBM Systems & Technology Group
Dept 0lva / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 05/05/2008 01:28:06 PM:
> Dear Dick,
>
> Thank you. We can actually introduce what you propose, possibly with
> a query function to make it still easier to live with, as early as
> in MPI 2.2, as a subset precursor. Judging by the discussion in
> Chicago, subsets may not need much more than that in the end,
> possibly with a little more flags and semantics added in MPI-3.
>
> The reservation against 32- (or for that matter, 64-) bit limitation
> is the only one I have at the moment. Not being able to attach
> assertions to communicators, etc. may be missed by some advanced
> programmers, but here we need to be pragmatic: who will ever want to
> go that deep?
>
> Best regards.
>
> Alexander
>
> From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:18 PM
> To: MPI 2.2
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] mpi-22 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 7
> Hi Alexander
>
> I have no objection to citing my "assertions" proposal in the
> subsetting discussions. I do want to keep it clear that this
> proposal is intended to be as simple as practical to implement,
exploit and
> live with.
>
> "Live with" applies to 3rd party library authors or anyone else who
> must write MPI code but does not know and control the structure of
> the entire application. That guy must "live with" the decisions made
> by whoever coded the MPI_INIT piece. "Live with" also applies to
> whoever must test or certify a specific MPI implementation.
>
> Thanks - Dick
>
> Dick Treumann - MPI Team/TCEM
> IBM Systems & Technology Group
> Dept 0lva / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
>
> [image removed] "Supalov, Alexander" <alexander.supalov_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> "Supalov, Alexander" <alexander.supalov_at_[hidden]>
> Sent by: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]
> 04/26/2008 04:03 AM
>
> Please respond to
> "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]>
>
> [image removed]
> To
>
> [image removed]
> "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]>
>
> [image removed]
> cc
>
> [image removed]
>
> [image removed]
> Subject
>
> [image removed]
> Re: [Mpi-22] mpi-22 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 7
>
> [image removed]
>
> [image removed]
>
>
> Dear Dick,
>
> Thank you. Would you mind if I cite your proposal in the subsets
> discussion? Yours looks like a good alternative to the thinking of
> some of us that subsets might be very rich and mutable, and to
> Jeff's proposal on hints I've already cited there with his permission.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Alexander
>
> From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:16 PM
> To: MPI 2.2
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] mpi-22 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 7
> Dick Treumann - MPI Team/TCEM
> IBM Systems & Technology Group
> Dept 0lva / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
>
>
> mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 04/24/2008 11:33:42 AM:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Note that this is an argument for making the assertions optional:
those
> > who don't care don't have to use them. Those who care should use
them
> > correctly or else. As usual.
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
>
> Hi Alexander
>
> The assertions are optional in this proposal. If this is added to
> the MPI standard the minimal impacts (day one impacts) are:
>
> ==
> To application writers (none) - MPI_INIT and MPI_INIT_THREAD still
> work. MPI_INIT_THREAD_xxx can be
> passed 0 (zero) as the assertions bit vector.
>
> To MPI Implementors (small) - subroutine MPI_INIT_THREAD_xxx can be
> a clone of MPI_INIT_THREAD under the covers. If the Forum decides
> the query function is for asking what assertions are being honored,
> the implementation can just return "none" to every query. If there
> is also a query for what assertions have been made then there are a
> few more lines of code the implementor must write to preserve the
> value so it can be returned(maybe 10 lines)
>
> Writers of opaque libraries (small) - call the query function at
> library init time and if any assertions are found, issue an error
> message and kill the job. This is awkward for a library that wants
> to support every MPI whether it has implemented the new query function
or not.
> ==
>
> As MPI implementations begin to take advantage of assertions there
> is more work for the MPI implementor and the library author must
> begin to think about whether his customer will be upset if the
> library simply outlaws all assertions.
>
> The library author will never be wrong if he simply forbids
> assertions forever. If they become valuable he will feel the
> pressure to work it out.
>
> The MPI implementor will never be wrong if he adds the API but
> simply ignores assertions forever. If they become valuable he will
> feel the pressure to honor some at least.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel GmbH
> Dornacher Strasse 1
> 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
> Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
> VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
> Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel GmbH
> Dornacher Strasse 1
> 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
> Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
> VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
> Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-22/attachments/20080506/5899e71c/attachment.html>
More information about the Mpi-22
mailing list