[Mpi-forum] Question about the semantics of MPI_Comm_disconnect

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

I realize that's the intent.  :-)

I'm saying: the phrase "and matched" does not seem correct, because all these types of communication do not have "match" defined for them.



On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> For one-sided you would need to call the corresponding synchronization function or Win_free for passive target operations.
> 
> In other words, you have to do whatever you need to do before calling Finalize. It is like calling Finalize on that communicator.
> 
> 
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:30 PM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ok -- but how do you apply the phrase "and matched" to pending one-sided communication?  Or a pending comm_idup?  Or ...?
>> 
>> I guess I'm saying that "and matched" isn't correct here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> The matched is the sense of the matching mentioned in the paragraph I quoted from MPI_Finalize. (If the process is the target of a send, it must have called the matching receive, if it is part of a group doing a collective, it must have called its collective, etc.)
>>> 
>>> Rajeev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rajeev --
>>>> 
>>>> Any insight on why it says "...complete *and matched*" (emphasis is mine)?
>>>> 
>>>>> MPI_COMM_DISCONNECT may be called only if all communication is complete and
>>>>> matched
>>>> 
>>>> The standard defines what matching means for point-to-point communications, but:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Does it define how an application is able to tell if a communication *has been matched* by the peer process?
>>>> 
>>>> 2. What about non-point-to-point communication?  E.g., is there a definition for "match" for collective file IO?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Let's take this sequence
>>>>> 
>>>>> MPI_Isend
>>>>> MPI_Wait
>>>>> MPI_Comm_disconnect
>>>>> 
>>>>> After MPI_Wait returns, it doesn't mean that the data has gone over to the other side. It could be buffered locally. Comm_disconnect will ensure that it gets communicated to the other side. If the Wait wasn't called at all in the above sequence, it would be similar to calling MPI_Finalize without a Wait (i.e., incorrect).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Think of Comm_disconnect as "whatever connection was there between client and server is gone".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rajeev
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hjelmn at lanl.gov> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hjelmn at lanl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That doesn't match with the wording on p 400 32-34:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "MPI_COMM_DISCONNECT has the same action as MPI_COMM_FREE, except that it
>>>>>>>> waits for pending communication to finish internally and enables the guarantee about the
>>>>>>>> behavior of disconnected processes."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The above sentence says that MPI_Comm_free does not wait for pending communication to complete, whereas MPI_Comm_disconnect does.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That makes absolutely no sense if MPI_Wait/MPI_Test cannot be called after MPI_Comm_disconnect. If
>>>>>> neither of those functions can be called after MPI_Comm_disconnect then it would be better wording
>>>>>> that all communication MUST be complete before the call the MPI_Comm_disconnect without any
>>>>>> qualification that MPI_Comm_disconnect with wait until all communication is complete. There should
>>>>>> be no communication otherwise we have to allow MPI_Wait/MPI_Test after the call to MPI_Comm_disconnect.
>>>>>> You see why this is confusing/bad wording in the standard? As an implementor I can not tell what
>>>>>> was intended here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Which suggests that some communication may not be finished when MPI_Comm_disconnect is called. Note
>>>>>>>> that is is safe to call MPI_Wait after MPI_Comm_disconnect but not after MPI_Finalize.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You cannot call MPI_Wait after MPI_Comm_disconnect. You can call it after MPI_Comm_free.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't see that anywhere in the description of MPI_Comm_disconnect. As far as I can tell the
>>>>>> code snippet I provided is 100% correct MPI code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Nathan
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/