[mpiwg-hybridpm] Meeting for June 12, 2024

[Skjellum, Anthony]

Jim, and others, I would like to discuss these topics (frozen proposals from MPI-4 and 4.1) at the next meeting on June 12:

Pbuf_prepare, Parrived_any

I would like to see if we can get agreement on these and push into MPI-4.2 or the next increment after that, rather than MPI-5.
I am sure this will take more than one discussion, since we didn't get these through before.

Note: They are both marked for MPI-5 currently, presumably because we don't have a broad opening for MPI-4.2, and we haven't agreed on an MPI-4.3.


Here are the tickets/issues:

https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/537__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLcELRBJq$  (PR:https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/718__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLYShSrSD$  ) – Ryan prepared the PR long ago.
[https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://opengraph.githubassets.com/6ac106e7db39c1db8f8d04107bddc2cd8f9e0b93935e59eb57244db11af8290a/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/537__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLdCVqIme$ ]<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/537__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLcELRBJq$ >
MPI_Parrived_any API as an addition for Partititioned Communication · Issue #537 · mpi-forum/mpi-issues<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/537__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLcELRBJq$ >
Problem The ability to take the next available partition is not supported in the current MPI-4.0 API. Proposal The API: MPI_Parrived_any(MPI_Request prequest, int *partition, int *flag); /* C inter...
github.com



https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/302__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLUxIuITZ$   (with outdated PR:  https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/264__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ZyZVjdWV6k41axZ3KnxwyMryXZZVlkJeaQidg7_lF3bDw-Fk2VzEaU_IcX7dZ5Cv8ZqLwEhN8CC1BqwKhKj1hFpCxBMDLXOQpejn$   ) – Ryan prepared the PR long ago.


My apologies for long delays in follow up.  We really need to resolve these issues as they impact both point-to-point partitioned and potential collective partitioned comms.

I would encourage additional commentary on the issues; Patrick has made new, relevant observations about the dual roles of Pbuf_prepare recently on ticket#302, for example.

Thank you all,
Tony

PS After that, I really do intend to hold a collective WG meeting to discuss partitioned collective ops 🙂 on June 19, or July 3 or 10, depending
what works in tandem with the Hybrid calendar.


Anthony Skjellum, PhD
Professor of Computer Science
Tennessee Technological University
email: askjellum at tntech.edu
cell: +1-205-807-4968


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-hybridpm/attachments/20240605/3657f9fb/attachment-0001.html>