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

Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 15:41:05 CST 2016

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.


> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-hybridpm/attachments/20160208/2c58c3ef/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list