[mpiwg-hybridpm] mpiwg-hybridpm Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1

[Jeff Hammond]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Halim Amer <aamer at anl.gov> wrote:

> All,
>
> I have pushed my changes to pages 401-500. There are some instances that
> were not clear whether they required the change, so I am providing some
> notes below in addition to other questions. We could discuss this during
> today's meeting.
>
> 0. Shall we update the figures to reflect the change? We are the original
> raw figures?
>
> 1. I think “processes” is a generic term and should be left as it is in:
>   P435: “We assume that systems have a public memory region that is
> addressable by all processes.”
>   P436: “This communication paradigm is closest to a shared memory model,
> where shared data can be accessed by all processes, irrespective of
> location.”
>
> 2. In this sentence, the coarse-grained locks refer to the MPI window
> locks, right? I left it as it is, but it might have to change into “MPI
> window locks”
>   P439: “RMA does not define fine-grained mutexes in memory (only logical
> coarse-grained process locks)”
>
>
Correct.  MPI_Win_lock is capable of establishing a critical section on a
(MPI window,MPI process) pair, when MPI_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE is used.


> 3. Several instances of the expression “process memory” in the semantics
> and correctness section were not preceded by origin, target, or other terms
> that define them (P453~). When prefixing the expression with “MPI”, the
> expression does not read well. I added “an” to identify an arbitrary MPI
> process, which seems correct in those contexts, but I think it needs to be
> reviewed carefully.
>
>
We should just make it clear that all references to process and process
memory in the RMA chapter refer to MPI processes.  I'd much rather make an
O(1) change than rewrite a few dozen sentences, particularly since it's
relatively clear what the intent is without any text changes.

4. I think multi-process can be left as it is in (P458):
> “In the RMA unified model, although the public and private copies
> of the windows are synchronized, caution must be used when
> combining load/stores and multi-process synchronization.”
> I am not sure if it makes sense to change it into multi-endpoint later
> though.
>
>
"combining load/stores and multi-process synchronization" -> "combining
load/stores and MPI synchronization" seems adequate.

EOM


> 5. I changed in several examples “Process A/B/0/1” into “MPI process
> A/B/0/1”, though am not sure it is necessary.
>
> 6. I think it is better to add the term MPI here, but we might consider
> removing the term thread because it is superfluous (P479):
> “A call to MPI_GREQUEST_COMPLETE may unblock a blocked user
> process/thread.”
>
> 7. Are we supposed to use MPI or \MPI? The threading-interface section
> already uses \MPI process all over the place
>
> Regards,
> --Halim
>
> www.mcs.anl.gov/~aamer
>
> On 2/6/16 11:00 AM, mpiwg-hybridpm-request at lists.mpi-forum.org wrote:
>
>> Send mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list submissions to
>>         mpiwg-hybridpm at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>         http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         mpiwg-hybridpm-request at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         mpiwg-hybridpm-owner at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of mpiwg-hybridpm digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>     1. Clarification of word 'process' (Daniel Holmes)
>>     2. Re: Clarification of word 'process' (Jeff Hammond)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:31:55 +0000
>> From: Daniel Holmes <dholmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
>> To: Hybrid WG <mpiwg-hybridpm at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>> Subject: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Clarification of word 'process'
>> Message-ID: <56B4F8AB.7000508 at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have just pushed a new branch into our mpiwg-hybrid git repo called
>> "hybrid-process-clarification".
>> It contains one commit: "Clarification of word 'process', pages 101-200".
>> I am anticipating that each person's changes can be recorded as a commit
>> with a similar message to aid identification.
>>
>> There are a few instances that need discussion - specifically, when the
>> new MPI_AINT arithmetic functions are talking about the scope of
>> validity for the resulting addresses should that be OS process or MPI
>> process?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dan.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list
> mpiwg-hybridpm at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm
>



-- 
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-hybridpm/attachments/20160208/2c58c3ef/attachment-0001.html>