[Mpi3-ft] New version of the RTS proposal
jjhursey at open-mpi.org
Wed Nov 9 07:59:34 CST 2011
Yeah I think that makes sense. It was the comment about mpi_comm_split
in the MPI_CART_SUB paragraph in the current standard that was
throwing me. I agree that since a process cannot contribute a value
(like the 'color' in mpi_comm_split) then there is nothing more we can
say. So it just falls into the class of other topology creation
operations that may carry over failed processes to the derived
I'll remove the sentence on p561 line 21-22 in the next pass.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Darius Buntinas <buntinas at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> In MPI_Cart_sub, processes don't "contribute" to the operation, so the current sentence on p561 doesn't really make sense. However, I don't think what we did for MPI_Comm_split will work here either. I think that MPI_Cart_sub should create the communicators as described in Section 7.5.7, which may result in failed processes being included in a new communicator.
> E.g., in Example 7.8 on p291, if the process at coordinate (0,2,1) in the topology failed, then if remain_dims = (true, false, true), then the third communicator (i.e., the one containing processes at coordinates (A,2,B), A = 0..1, B = 0..3) would have a failed process (at coordinates (0,1) ).
> Maybe the example makes things more confusing. I think MPI_CART_SUB is already covered in by the sentence starting on line 7 page 561, so we can probably take the MPI_CART_SUB sentence out.
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:
>> * I would like some more folks to look over the process topologies
>> chapter. In particular I think we need to fix the wording for
>> MPI_CART_SUB - maybe to better match the wording for mpi_comm_split.
> mpi3-ft mailing list
> mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
More information about the mpiwg-ft