[Mpi-forum] Question about the semantics of MPI_Comm_disconnect

Tue Nov 12 17:45:27 CST 2013

Yes, it's a bit loosely used in that sentence :-).

On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:

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