[Mpi3-hybridpm] Endpoints Proposal

Sur, Sayantan sayantan.sur at intel.com
Tue Mar 19 17:23:11 CDT 2013

> On 03/19/2013 12:44 PM US Central Time, Sur, Sayantan wrote:
> > For example, do we want to create independent endpoints for each
> > thread? What would be the motivation of doing that? One thought is
> > that it could help existing MPI+OpenMP codes to be ported in a
> > conceptually similar manner (just that now each rank is really an
> > endpoint). Now each endpoint can inject and receive messages to remote
> > ranks/endpoints independently. However, there is memory cost to pay in
> > this model. On a system with N nodes, P cores per node memory cost per
> > node is O(NP^2).
> The motivation is not to create one endpoint per thread.  The motivation is to
> give a model where the number of endpoints is not required to always be 1
> per process.  Yes, in the extreme case, the user can create as many
> endpoints as processes, but that's just an extreme usage case.
> If we did limit how many endpoints can be created per address space, what
> would that limit be?

OK. I understand that you are just exposing the model and giving as much flexibility as you possibly can.

What I am trying to find out is what problem is the endpoint approach trying to solve? It has major implications on the standard as it touches many chapters.

Just as an example: Suppose there is an MPI+OpenMP app that runs on 16 cores with 1 MPI rank and 16 threads. On certain platform you find out if there are two endpoints you get better network utilization. In this case, can you not just run 2 MPI ranks with 8 threads each? How is this not achieve the same effect as your endpoint proposal?


More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list