[Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09

Thu Feb 28 23:38:17 CST 2008

Hi,

Thanks. I understand your motivation. When you say "most real
applications" - what applications do you mean? At least, in what area?

For the NIC part, the stress was on "here". In my opinion, subsetting is
not about making things more complicated, more challenging to the
implementors, or to the underlying hardware. It's about making things
simple, easy to use, and easy to implement - including implementation of
only those features your users actually need. That the implementation
may be faster due to this is an added bonus, not the primary goal.

Still, regarding user side copying. Yes, when people do this one wonders
why. There's a reason, apart from them: 1) not caring about datatypes
and their complexity and 2) not trusting their performance. A modern
compiler can rather well optimize a loop with a constant stride, and may
have difficulty with an unknown stride. This is why explicit loops are
sometimes indeed faster (much faster) in the resulting code than any
generic implementation.

Best regards.

Alexander

-----Original Message-----
From: Bronis R. de Supinski [mailto:bronis_at_[hidden]] 
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:20 AM
To: Supalov, Alexander
Cc: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon
ww09

Alexander:

Most real applications need to send non-contiguous
data. If they do not use datatypes then they are
doing the equivalent of either the packing/unpacking
or smaller messages at the user level. This s hould
be discouraged, not encouraged. A small savings
in library object size is not ample reason to go
against that. And, yes, we are after encouraging
hardware vendors to provide the right hardware.

Bronis

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Supalov, Alexander wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks. I think the main thrust here is the library footprint (no
> pack/unpack, etc.) and complexity of the user side of the datatype
> interface, rather than performance. Many applications just don't need
> any of this, and never will. Why not translating this application
> non-requirement into a minimum MPI subset? Same with
communicator/group
> management, etc.
>
> Moreover, homogeneous installations that dominate HPC now don't
actually
> need any datatype support at all. They send chunks of bytes. This may
> change in the future, though.
>
> A minor performance implication is that without holes that are only
> possible with derived datatypes, one does not need to track this,
split
> the critical path, and make special provisions inside the MPI device
> layer to handle iov or such.
>
> The NIC capability argument is interesting, but it turns the
discussion
> on its head: we're not after motivating network vendors to provide
> scatter/gather in hardware here, are we? Please clarify.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Alexander
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
Bronis
> R. de Supinski
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:53 AM
> To: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon
> ww09
>
>
> All:
>
> OK, I have to respond to the notion that derived datatypes
> limit performance. It is just not a reasonable position.
>
> Sure, if you can send contiguous locations, you will get
> higher performance. The problem is that codes do not only
> need to send contiguous data so that is not an adequate
> reason to say derived datatypes limit performance.
>
> So, what is left? That there is some more efficient way
> to send non-contiguous data? How? As multiple messages,
> each of which send contiguous data? If so, then the
> implementation could do this under the covers and the
> datatypes are just a convenience for the user not to
> have to specify the individual sends. OK, suppose that's
> not the reason. Perhaps the user can do the copying into
> a contiguous buffer and get better performance? While
> I have seen this hold with some implementations, it is
> absurd. There is no reason that I can discern as to why
> the user should be able to deduce a better copying
> mechanism than the MPI implementer. So, again, at worst,
> the datatypes should be a convenience. Do you have an
> alternative reason or a refutation of these opinions?
>
> What is more important, it is certainly possible to build
> scatter/gather support into a NIC and achieve better
> performance with datatypes than without. While there are
> issues to be resolved for that (primarily the issue of
> pinning memory), they are solvable with the right hardware
> mechanism. Just because it does not yet exist is not
> an adequate reason to say "Get rid of datatypes". OK,
> you are not saying that but you are saying to deprecate
> them in a sense. And saying you could send contiguous
> sends more efficiently is a bad argument here. How do
> datatypes cause inefficiency for that? How much is
> that cost really? At what point do you hit where the
> answer is "It would be faster not to compute anything"?
>
> Bronis
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks. What subsets inside the current standard would you propose?
> What
> > interfaces between them would you envision?
> >
> > Good idea about the optimization opportunities. Here's an initial
> > combined list, with the main benefits as I see them. Please
> > comment/extend.
> >
> > - Dynamic process support: less overhead in the progress engine,
> easier
> > global rank handling.
> > - Heterogeneity: better memory footprint, easier data handling.
> > - Derived datatypes (especially those with holes): better memory
> > footprint.
> > - MPI_ANY_SOURCE: faster, more simple multifabric progress.
> > - File I/O: smaller requests, easier wait/test functions.
> > - One-sided ops: no passive target w/o MPI calls - no extra progress
> > thread.
> > - Communicator & group management: better memory footprint.
> > - Message tagging: better support for stable dataflow exchanges,
> smaller
> > packets.
> > - Non-blocking communication: easier ordering, simplified request
> > handling.
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]
> > [mailto:mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
> > Torsten Hoefler
> > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:08 AM
> > To: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden]
> > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon
> > ww09
> >
> > Hi,
> > >    Present: Leonid Meyerguz (Microsoft), Rich Graham (ORNL),
Richard
> > Barrett
> > >    (ORNL), Torsten Hoefler (ISU), Alexander Supalov (Intel)
> > just for the record, it's "IU" not "ISU" :-)
> >
> > >    - Scope of the effort
> > >      - Rich
> > >        - Minimum subset consistent with the rest of MPI, for
> > >    performance/memory footprint optimization
> > >        - Danger of splitting MPI, hence against optional features
in
> > the
> > >    standard
> > I back that (danger of optional features for portability). I'd
propose
> > to split the current standard into mostly self-contained subsets
that
> > have clearly defined interfaces to the rest of the standard. Note:
> this
> > only defines logical interfaces, that does *not* define how those
> things
> > are to be implemented. This makes it easier to understand the
standard
> > and have separate (portable) libraries for the subsets, it does not
> > influence optimization possibilities by implementing everything in a
> > monolithic block (i.e., central progress).
> >
> > >        - Both blocking & nonblocking belong to the core
> > >      - Torsten
> > >        - Some collectives may go into selectable subsets
> > I see three subsets: blocking colls, non-blocking colls and
> topological
> > colls (maybe also blocking / non-blocking).
> >
> > >        - MPI_ANY_SOURCE considered harmful
> > I'd like to add datatypes and heterogeneity to this list (with
regards
> > to performance). Alexander mentioned the dynamics. I think we should
> > have a lit of items ready that could influence optimization
> > possibilities significanty if they were to be announced by the user
> > before he can use them. That would give another strong argument for
> the
> > subsetting.
> >
> > Best,
> >   Torsten
> >
> > --
> >  bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/
-----
> > Indiana University    | http://www.indiana.edu
> > Open Systems Lab      | http://osl.iu.edu/
> > 150 S. Woodlawn Ave.  | Bloomington, IN, 474045-7104 | USA
> > Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mpi3-subsetting mailing list
> > Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden]
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Intel GmbH
> > Dornacher Strasse 1
> > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
> > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
> > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
> > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
> > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
> > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material
for
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
distribution
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mpi3-subsetting mailing list
> > Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden]
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-subsetting mailing list
> Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel GmbH
> Dornacher Strasse 1
> 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
> Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
> VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
> Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.