[mpi3-coll] Non-blocking Collectives Proposal Draft

[Rajeev Thakur]

> 1) The MPI-2.1 document has 127 occurrences of "nonblocking" 
> and only 8 
> occurrences of "non-blocking". What would be the correct 
> term? Should we try to be more consistent?
 
The technical editor in our division prefers the version without the hyphen.
She will remove the hyphen in our papers.

Rajeev


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-coll-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org 
> [mailto:mpi3-coll-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of 
> Christian Siebert
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:03 AM
> To: MPI-3 Collective Subgroup Discussions
> Subject: Re: [mpi3-coll] Non-blocking Collectives Proposal Draft
> 
> @Torsten:
> 
> Thanks a lot for this first draft! I tried to make some 
> useful comments 
> and attached the results to this mail (sorry, I can't comment 
> PDFs so I 
> did it the "old inconvenient way").
> 
> @Working Group (something to discuss):
> 
> 1) The MPI-2.1 document has 127 occurrences of "nonblocking" 
> and only 8 
> occurrences of "non-blocking". What would be the correct 
> term? Should we 
> try to be more consistent?
> 
> 2) Clarification of MPI_Request_free() for requests from non-blocking 
> collective operations.
> 
> 3) Better definition/description for "matching" (there is 
> nothing like 
> "at the same time" -> logical order?).
> 
> 4) Define "levels of progression"? To be queried (e.g., for 
> "Synchronous 
> Progress" MPI_Tests are needed for performance, but for "Asynchronous 
> Progress" they would only add unnecessary overhead)? UP >= AP >= SP?
> 
> 5) "Unexpected Progress" => "buffered" collectives?
> 
> 6) NBC gives several possible ways for optimizations. With 
> this "General 
> advice to implementers" we stick to only one, and might 
> prevent others. 
> Can we already fix a decision for optimization strategies at 
> this stage? 
> Should we fix it at all?
> 
> 7) Should there be a concrete code example in the proposal (e.g. an 
> implementation of this double buffering example)?
> 
> Hope this isn't too much for now.
> 
> Best regards,
>     Christian
> 
> Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> > Hello Working Group,
> > I finished a first draft of our non-blocking collectives proposal.
> > Please read it carefully and send comments to me or the list (e.g.,
> > marked-up pdf documents).
> > 
> > The draft is attached to this mail.
> > 
> > All the Best,
> >   Torsten
> 
> -- 
> Christian Siebert, Dipl.-Inf.               Research Associate
> 
>             NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
>         Rathausallee 10, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
> 
> Phone: +49 (0) 2241 - 92 52 44    Fax: +49 (0) 2241 - 92 52 99
> 
>   (Registered Office: 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, 2832014)
>