[Mpi3-hybridpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Threading homeworking / next telecon

[Jeff Hammond]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:17 PM, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> I was only addressing the issue of calling the thread level routines before
> knowing what thread level you had.

Okay, sorry, I cannot tell which tickets people are referring to since
I have a bunch of different ones right now.

> I'm not sure what you are looking for.  In the case of MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE,
> an implementation can provide significant concurrency today without any
> change in the MPI standard - that's a major reason for that table (more to
> the point - this table is meant as a guide for not using locks).  Can you
> give me an example of something that the current MPI semantics prohibits
> that you'd like to achieve with MPI_THREAD_PER_OBJECT?

It is my understanding of the progress requirements that any call to
MPI must make progress on all MPI operations.  This means that two
threads calling e.g. MPI_Recv must walk all of the message queues.  If
a thread needs to modify any queue because it matches, then this must
be done in a thread-safe way, which presumably requires something
resembling mutual exclusion or transactions.  If a call to MPI_Recv
only had to make progress on its own communicator, then two threads
calling MPI_Recv on two different communicators would (1) only have to
walk the message queue associated with that communicator and (2)
nothing resembling mutual exclusion is required for the thread to
update the message queue in the event that matching occurs.

Forgive me if I've got some of the details wrong.  If I've got all of
the details and the big picture wrong, then I'll think about it more.

Jeff

> On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>
> That doesn't do much for me in terms of enabling greater concurrency
> in performance-critical operations.
>
> I'd like to propose that we try to make all of "Access Only", "Update
> RefCount", "Read of List" and "None" thread safe in all cases.  All of
> these are read-only except for "Update RefCount", but this can be done
> with atomics.  I am assuming that concurrent reads are only permitted
> to happen after the writing calls on the object have completed.  This
> is the essence of MPI_THREAD_PER_OBJECT.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-hybridpm mailing list
> Mpi3-hybridpm at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-hybridpm



-- 
Jeff Hammond
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
University of Chicago Computation Institute
jhammond at alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond