[Mpi3-ft] Topics for next telecon
schulzm at llnl.gov
Wed Jun 10 23:54:08 CDT 2009
At 06:00 PM 6/10/2009, Greg Bronevetsky wrote:
>For the next telecon I propose that we address the following topics.
>- The piggybacking proposal was considered by the FT group several
>months ago but then got lost in a limbo between the FT group and the
>tools group. We need to discuss this proposal and the issues behind
>it so that we can figure out how to make progress on it.
I agree with Greg - it would be great if we could pick this up
again and try to come up with a single, common proposal. There is
interest in this from multiple WGs (which is probably part of
the problem of why nobody has pushed this forward) and if the FT
group could continue to "host" this, that would be great. It
would also be good to cross-post the TelCon announcement to the
tools and AM WGs (for the latter, Torsten has voiced interest).
>- During the face-to-face discussion we began talking about the
>desired error notification semantics for collectives. The question
>is: are MPI implementations allowed to provide no error notification
>as part of their collectives, relying on calls to MPI_Validate for
>this functionality or do we expect them to report all relevant
>errors. In particular, is MPI_Barrier responsible for reporting
>failures of any members of the communicator or is it allowed to
>mis-behave in the event of failures and for example, return
>successfully even if one process failed before calling MPI_Barrier?
>If so, how do we bound the limit of such mis-behaviors?
>Lawrence Livermore National Lab
>bronevetsky at llnl.gov
>mpi3-ft mailing list
>mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulz6
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
More information about the mpiwg-ft