[Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012

Rolf Rabenseifner rabenseifner at hlrs.de
Mon Aug 6 05:59:50 CDT 2012

Rich and Jeff and chapter authors,

  how do we process the incoming comments.
  Should we discuss such comments on 

    "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>;

  and after having a result, replying to the comment with direct email
  to the author of the comment with a CC to mpi-comments at mpi-forum.org ?

  Everybody can be the starter of such discussion by
  forwarding such a comments-email to the mpi-forum list
  together with a meaningful subject mentioning also the 
  comment's author, here e.g.
    "Fairness of MPI_ANY_SOURCE - Sebastien Boisvert" 

  This helps match the two tracks in mpi-comments (typically only 
  two mails) and mpi-forum (full internal discussion) email lists. 

Chapter authors, 
  if nobody else started such a discussion, then the 
  chapter author must start the discussion.
  If there is no specific chapter, then Rich as MPI-3.0 chair
  takes this role.

  are all chapter authors member of the comments list?

Rich, what do you think about this process proposal.
You started the idea with public comment, therefore
I ask you directly to send out a process rule
that we all should use.

Best regards

PS: All, please do not use this track for discussing the 
    content of the comment.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Sébastien Boisvert" <sebastien.boisvert.3 at ulaval.ca>
To: mpi-comments at mpi-forum.org
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:50:29 AM
Subject: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012

Dear MPI Forum committee members,

I would like to submit a comment on the MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012
for your consideration.

Version: MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012.

The URL of the version of the MPI standard:

Page: 65

Line number: 28

Section: 3.8.1


3. Point-to-Point Communication
     3.8 Probe and Cancel
           3.8.1 Probe


It says that the source argument of MPI_Iprobe can be MPI_ANY_SOURCE, but it
does say anything about fairness. Therefore MPI_ANY_SOURCE can lead to resource

I think it would be better if probing would be done in a round-robin fashion
when the source is MPI_ANY_SOURCE so that any MPI rank has an equal chance of
having its message probed and received.

Presently, the MPI standard contains nothing about which source should be probed when
MPI_ANY_SOURCE is provided.

I hope you will consider my comment.


Sébastien Boisvert
PhD student
Université Laval

mpi-comments mailing list
mpi-comments at lists.mpi-forum.org

Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner at 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)

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list