[Mpi3-ft] Defining the state of MPI after an error

[Darius Buntinas]

Currently the behavior is undefined, so the implementation could really do anything...including the proposed behavior, so this shouldn't affect backward compatibility.  Note that this doesn't affect the ERRORS_ARE_FATAL case, just the ERRORS_RETURN case, so apps that don't set an error handler and count on the implementation aborting, will not be affected.

-d

On Sep 20, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Richard Treumann wrote:

> 
> I am not talking about libmpi fixing an application bug.  I am talking about the fact that if an application has a bug, the state of the application becomes unknown.  Something that was part of the algorithm that the author was trying to apply to get an answer has not happened as envisioned.  How can the application state be trusted?   
> 
> I see no problem with urging MPI implementations to refrain from shooting down future MPI calls when the user has set MPI_ERRORS_RETURN but I have a hard time imagining going much beyond that for application bugs. 
> 
> For example, a call to MPI_Bcast that has a bad communicator at one task will eventually hang but one that has a bad communicator at all tasks can continue (the application state is probably corrupted but libmpi should be OK) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Treumann  -  MPI Team           
> IBM Systems & Technology Group
> Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> Tele (845) 433-7846         Fax (845) 433-8363
> 
> 
> 
> From:	Darius Buntinas <buntinas at mcs.anl.gov>
> To:	"MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group" <mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Date:	09/20/2010 10:43 AM
> Subject:	Re: [Mpi3-ft] Defining the state of MPI after an error
> Sent by: 	mpi3-ft-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Josh meant that the MPI implementation would fix application bugs, but rather that the return of an error class other than CANNOT_CONTINUE means that the implementation is in an internally consistent state and that it can continue performing MPI functions.
> 
> -d
> 
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Richard Treumann wrote:
> 
> > 
> > How does an application experience errors in classes (MPI_ERR_COUNT, MPI_ERR_TAG) except by a bug in the application itself? 
> > 
> > How can it be easier for someone to know how to continue from an arbitrary application bug with confidence that the application is still giving good answers, than to just fix the app? 
> > 
> > 
> > Dick Treumann  -  MPI Team           
> > IBM Systems & Technology Group
> > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> > Tele (845) 433-7846         Fax (845) 433-8363
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From:                 Joshua Hursey <jjhursey at open-mpi.org>
> > To:                 "MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group" <mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> > Date:                 09/20/2010 10:05 AM
> > Subject:                 [Mpi3-ft] Defining the state of MPI after an error
> > Sent by:                  mpi3-ft-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > During EuroMPI and the MPI Forum meeting last week the issue of the MPI state after an error was brought up a few times. The issue is that since the state is undefined then no portable program can be written that uses the errorhandlers then MPI functionality following the error. This issue is particularly difficult for applications that wish to catch informational or warning type errors (e.g., MPI_ERR_COUNT, MPI_ERR_TAG, MPI_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION). These operations are often recoverable by the MPI implementation and/or the application.
> > 
> > To address this portability issue, I am bringing out the MPI_ERR_CANNOT_CONTINUE error class from the stabilization proposal. I presented the idea to the MPI Forum during a plenary session last week and received a positive response on building a formal proposal [Straw vote: 22 (yes), 0 (no), 3 (abstain)].
> > 
> > I have created a first draft of the proposal for the working group to review on the wiki at the link below:
> >  https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/ft/err_cannot_continue
> > 
> > I would like to have this proposal ready by the Oct. meeting so we can have a formal plenary session on it. If all goes well, maybe we can get a first reading by Dec.
> > 
> > Let me know what you think about this proposal.
> > 
> > -- Josh
> > 
> > ------------------------------------
> > Joshua Hursey
> > Postdoctoral Research Associate
> > Oak Ridge National Laboratory
> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~jjhursey
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-ft mailing list
> > mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-ft mailing list
> > mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-ft mailing list
> mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-ft mailing list
> mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft