[mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29)

[Martin Schulz]

Hi Dan, all,

Just my personal view: the that’s how I always interpreted the statement anyway, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hence, adding the clarification is IMHO a good move.

Just my 2c,

Martin


> On 29. Nov 2017, at 11:07, HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Persistence WG members,
> 
> We have a suggested change to the wording of the MPI Standard text that we will propose to the MPI Forum next week regarding persistent collective operations.
> 
>> Once initialized,
>> persistent collective operations can be started in any order
>> independently of initialization order
>> +and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator
> 
> Most of this sentence already appears in our proposed text - the suggestion is to add the line beginning with “+”.
> 
> I think this is a good suggestion - we should make this point absolutely clear. We should word-smith the exact phrase (e.g. during the meeting later today?) and then include it in our formal reading next week by holding a “no-no” vote.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dan.
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: KAWASHIMA Takahiro <notifications at github.com <mailto:notifications at github.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29)
>> Date: 29 November 2017 at 06:09:20 GMT
>> To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <mpi-standard at noreply.github.com <mailto:mpi-standard at noreply.github.com>>
>> Cc: Dan Holmes <dholmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk <mailto:dholmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>>, Mention <mention at noreply.github.com <mailto:mention at noreply.github.com>>
>> Reply-To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755 at reply.github.com <mailto:reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755 at reply.github.com>>
>> 
>> @dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk <https://github.com/dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk>,
>> With the existing text, I think many people can understand that it is saying (at least) "requests can be started using MPI_START or MPI_STARTALL in any order independently of initialization order", because of analogy to the point-to-point communication. So I think your suggested text is unnecessary.
>> But some people may not understand that it is also saying "the order of starting requests can differ among ranks in the communicator", because (1) the matching rule for persistent collective operations is different from the matching rule for point-to-point communication so that analogy to the point-to-point communication is not applied and (2) the order of nonblocking collective calls must be same among ranks in the communicator.
>> 
>> How about the sentence below? I'm not good at English. Please correct it if it is not good.
>> 
>> Once initialized,
>> persistent collective operations can be started in any order
>> independently of initialization order
>> and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator
>> 
>> If anyone else thinks the existing text is sufficient, I won't request the change. Probably my English reading skill is low.
>> 
>> —
>> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/29#issuecomment-347762876>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMf8SiG0KfwGmYxNhaFoTBv_JDwibZPnks5s7PUPgaJpZM4Npoc2>.
>> 
> 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-persistence mailing list
> mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-persistence/attachments/20171129/c3358620/attachment-0003.html>