[mpiwg-hybridpm] Hybrid telecon fiasco

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Apr 10, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Daniel Holmes <dholmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> However, as we're splitting hairs, I have to disagree with Jeff's statement:
>> With this proposal, MPI processes are a proper subset of MPI endpoints.
> This is like saying "cars are a proper subset of wheels". Which wheel is the car and which ones are not?

Fair point.

> Could Jim's statement go one step further, i.e. in the proposal we are saying "everywhere that you see 'process' in the spec, replace it with 'endpoint' (some of which are MPI processes and some of which are not)"?

(and some places really mean "processes" -- not "endpoints", e.g., when discussing dynamic processes ;-) )

> Every endpoint is represented in an MPI process as a 2-tuple of communicator and rank. Actually, there will be at least two endpoints in every MPI process (one from MPI_COMM_WORLD and one from MPI_COMM_SELF). New endpoints can be created by creating new communicators, e.g. with MPI_COMM_DUP. 

This is a better characterization than my previous statement.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/