[Mpi-22] Memory footprint concern
treumann at [hidden]
Fri May 9 15:48:08 CDT 2008
Say the MPI implementor for the Cell SPE version of MPI did a good job of
organizing his functionality (perhaps by making subsetting decisions that
work for the structure of his implementation). Say there is an MPI
application that only makes calls to the 6 essential MPI routines plus
MPI_Allreduce and MPI_Bcast. When that application is statically bound to
the MPI implementation by a smart linker that follows dependancy chains and
only brings in needed subroutines don't you get the desired result?
What more do you get in this case from having the MPI standard dictate the
subsets and asking the user to declare what subsets he will need? If you
leave it to the implementor to devise the subsets and change them as some
ways of slicing and dicing libmpi prove more useful than others it may be
better than having the standard lock down the dividing lines based on
today's best guess.
It does occur to me that the linker cannot tell if the MPI_Bcast call will
need the code that supports MPI_Bcast on intercommunicators even though
that is rarely used. That means if the application has an MPI_Bcast call,
both (probably needed) intracomm- and (probably not needed) intercomm
support enter the footprint.
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 05/09/2008 02:34:33 PM:
> Imagine, for example, MPI running on a Cell SPE. Yes, it sounds
> crazy, but people are working on it. If you look at the state in
> MPI-2 today, and assume it will grow proportionally with complexity,
> MPI-3 could be really nasty in that context. So, while I agree that
> an arbitrarily large number of permutations is a terrible idea for
> everyone involved (implementers wouldnât leverage all of the
> options, ISVs wouldnât test them, people who write third party
> libraries would have a huge headache dealing with the arbitrary
> combination of features chosen by the application), it seems like it
> would be prudent to try to figure out how to provide some mechanisms
> in this direction. I donât know if this overlaps with your idea
> about assertions or not, but they do seem to be related.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mpi-22