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

[Richard Graham]

Comments in line:

-----Original Message-----
From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:40 PM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012

I think Rolf's points were twofold:

1. How do we track the comments to ensure that we don't lose any / consider every one?
[rich] I plan to look through the archives after the 6th, and to forward comments to the relevant wg's.   Right now this is simple, but if we start to get a lot of comments, will have to get organized a bit better.


2. If the chapter authors are not subscribed to the mpi-comments list, then they won't even know if their chapter got a comment.
[rich] We can forward mail messages.

Rich


On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Richard Graham wrote:

> The plan is to go over the comments and make any changes we agree on by the 12th, giving people a week to go over the document before the final votes.
> 
> Small edits will go to chapter committees for their review, and if there are large items, we will need to have a telecom on the 10th of Sept to decide if and how to respond.
> 
> So far, there have been only 1-2 minor comments.
> 
> Rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org 
> [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Rolf 
> Rabenseifner
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 2:01 PM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd: 
> [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012
> 
> Rich and Jeff and chapter authors,
> 
> Rich,
>  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.
> 
> Jeff,
>  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
> Rolf
> 
> 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:
> http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/draft_standard/mpi3.0_draft_2.pdf
> 
> Page: 65
> 
> Line number: 28
> 
> Section: 3.8.1
> 
> In: 
> 
> 3. Point-to-Point Communication
>     3.8 Probe and Cancel
>           3.8.1 Probe
> 
> Comment:
> 
> 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 starvation.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Sébastien Boisvert
> PhD student
> Université Laval
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-comments mailing list
> mpi-comments at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-comments
> 
> --
> 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)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum


--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/


_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum