[Mpi-forum] which WG for generalized requests?

[Schulz Martin]

Hi Jeff,

Sure, no problem - I marked the second slot as a joint WG session. As for
the WG itself, I have no problems with the plan unless Fab objects. I’ll
wait to make any changes there until we hear from him.

Thanks,

Martin


________________________________________________________________________
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA





On 11/22/14, 6:02 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:

>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