[Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?

[Anthony Skjellum]

Hi, I think we should put generalized requests in the Persistent group :-)
Seriously, I think we need persistent generalized requests.  Perhaps we can compare notes offline.

I really don't which group it goes in, but if we are revisiting GREQs we should consider persistent ones.

Tony



Anthony Skjellum, PhD
Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering
COLSA Professor of Cybersecurity and Information Assurance
Director of the Auburn Cyber Research Center and Lead Cyber Scientist for Auburn
Samuel Ginn College of Engineering
Auburn University
skjellum at auburn.edu or skjellum at gmail.com
cell: +1-205-807-4968 ; office: +1-334-844-6360


CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person,
use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium.

________________________________________
From: mpi-forum [mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jeff Hammond [jeff.science at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 6:02 PM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?

Martin:

Can you assign one of the two slots for the large-count WG on Monday
to be a joint meeting with the greq WG?  Again, this assumes Fab will
not veto this plan...

One of my main motivations for better greqs is large-count nonblocking
collectives, so it makes sense to me to combine the discussion.  The
other motivation for this at the San Jose meeting is that there's not
time for a separate greq WG session since I'm otherwise obligated on
Tuesday and it seems imprudent to overlap with WGs that Pavan is
driving since he has expressed interest.

Thanks!

Jeff

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok.  Fab is currently the greq WG lead and I understand he's not going
> to be absent from the Forum for a while (not immediately).
>
> Martin: Can you assign Pavan and/or me as the WG lead, assuming Fab
> consents to it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji at anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> It might make more sense to revive the generalized requests WG.  I'm very interested in helping drive the extended generalized requests proposal, whichever WG it ends up being in.
>>
>>   -- Pavan
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess there is an inactive WG for generalized requests, but perhaps
>>> it makes more sense to discuss in the context of the active p2p or
>>> hybrid WG.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any comments on this?
>>>
>>> The relevant ticket is https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/457.
>>>
>>> My motivation for revisiting this issue is that I've found a number of
>>> problems that can be addressed with MPICH-style generalized requests,
>>> including large-count nonblocking collectives.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff Hammond
>>> jeff.science at gmail.com
>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi-forum mailing list
>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>>
>> --
>> Pavan Balaji  ✉️
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi-forum mailing list
>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science at gmail.com
> http://jeffhammond.github.io/



--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum