[Mpi3-hybridpm] SHMEM Interface in Draft External Interfaces

James Dinan dinan at mcs.anl.gov
Tue Feb 22 14:24:33 CST 2011

Hi Ron,

On 2/17/11 12:34 PM, Ron Brightwell wrote:
> On 02/17/2011 09:18 AM, James Dinan wrote:
>> I tend to agree with this - MPI_COMM_SHM seems like it's standing in for
>> more sophisticated functionality to help the programmer build
>> communicators based on system topology. There was similar feedback in
>> the forum as well (although the discussion digressed into "what if we
>> have DSM and how should MPI deal with that" which also raises
>> interesting questions).
>> On future and even current systems the on-node topology is becoming more
>> complex. We could, for example, want to map shared memory on a
>> per-socket basis rather than across all sockets on the node to avoid
>> sending data over the intra-node interconnect.
> This is somewhat where the proposal started. We tossed around the idea
> that you can't assume any kind of affinity - processes may move freely
> between sockets - the complexity of figuring out a portable way to
> expose hierarchy was significant. Our options seemed to be to say
> nothing about how the application discovers which processes can share
> memory or only say as little as possible, since anything else is just a
> potential optimization. People weren't happy with the former since it
> impacted portability.

Should we consider a function like MPI_Comm_split_shm(MPI_Comm parent, 
MPI_Comm *comm_shm) since a constant MPI_COMM_SHM will not be able to 
capture dynamic processes joining/leaving the computation?


More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list