[mpiwg-persistence] Partitioned communication - Accelerator support

Bangalore, Purushotham puri at uab.edu
Wed Jul 15 14:37:20 CDT 2020


I am starting a new thread with the appropriate subject header to separate out the discussion on this topic. I have also cc'ed the collective communications group and removed the semantic terms group for this discussion.

Thanks,
Puri
________________________________
From: Skjellum, Anthony <Tony-Skjellum at utc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:53 PM
To: Bangalore, Purushotham <puri at uab.edu>; HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org>; mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Summary of Semantics for Partitioned Communication Operations

We had a short meeting with Ryan and students---he advocates
for a blocking PSYNC on both sides now... after start... before kernel
launch on send side...


Anthony Skjellum, PhD

Professor of Computer Science and Chair of Excellence

Director, SimCenter

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC)

tony-skjellum at utc.edu  [or skjellum at gmail.com]

cell: 205-807-4968


________________________________
From: mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of HOLMES Daniel via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:42 PM
To: Purushotham Bangalore <puri at uab.edu>
Cc: mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org>; mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Summary of Semantics for Partitioned Communication Operations

Hi Puri,

Thanks for this - a great way to provoke some progress (no pun intended).

I would suggest: move the rows dealing with MPI_PREADY and MPI_PARRIVED between MPI_START and MPI_WAIT, i.e. in the approximate calling order.

Also, I would add “ic” for the new MPI_PREADY, MPI_PARRIVED, etc procedures - because the operation is definitely incomplete at the point in time they are called, during the time interval of their entire execution, and at the point in time they return - there is no possibility they could be completing or freeing procedures.

What are the other footnotes: 7, 9, and 14? (I could look them up but I’d have to choose the same draft version as you because the numbering changed recently.)

Cheers,
Dan.
—
Dr Daniel Holmes PhD
Architect (HPC Research)
d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465
Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088
Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT
—
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
—

On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:24, Bangalore, Purushotham via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>> wrote:

<MPI-semantics-appendix.xlsx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-persistence/attachments/20200715/c7bd84b9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the mpiwg-persistence mailing list