[Mpi3-rma] [EXTERNAL] Re: Disp_unit in allocate_shared should be returned by win_shared_query?

Sun Jul 22 12:28:51 CDT 2012

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:11:23PM +0000, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> I'm concerned with the change (and don't think it should happen 
> at this point, as I want to be able to tell other people their 
> changes are too big).  It's probably not another O(p) structure, 
> since a process will have to know the other rank's disp_unit to 
> do the memcpy during the communication operations, so we crossed 
> the O(p) bridge when we added disp_unit to allocate_shared.

I would recommend to add two advices:

  Advice to users. For scalability reasons it is recommended
  that all processes provide the same disp_unit argument
  on all processes. End of advice to users.

  Advice to implementors. If the user provides the same
  disp_unit argument on all processes of the communicator,
  or a compressible list of values, it is necessary for 
  scalability reasons to store this data as compact as possible.
  End of advice to users.

Of course for all thre MPI_WIN_CREATE, MPI_WIN_AALOCATE, and
MPI_WIN_ALLOCATE_SHARED.

Is this a good idea?
If yes, can someone find a better wording for this proposal?

Best regards
Rolf

----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Gropp" <wgropp at illinois.edu>
> To: "MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group" <mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] [EXTERNAL] Re: Disp_unit in allocate_shared should be returned by win_shared_query?
> What *exactly* are the proposals? I know in general, but some of the
> statements make me wonder if I understand the proposal.
> 
> Bill
> 
> William Gropp
> Director, Parallel Computing Institute
> Deputy Director for Research
> Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
> Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I think we should discuss this more. Right now, we still have more
> > votes
> > in favor of this than against. The change is still committed and
> > part of
> > the "official release". The deadline is 7/26.
> >
> > Please advise what to do!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  Torsten
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:11:23PM +0000, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> >> I'm concerned with the change (and don't think it should happen at
> >> this point, as I want to be able to tell other people their changes
> >> are too big). It's probably not another O(p) structure, since a
> >> process will have to know the other rank's disp_unit to do the
> >> memcpy during the communication operations, so we crossed the O(p)
> >> bridge when we added disp_unit to allocate_shared.
> >>
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Brian W. Barrett
> >>  Scalable System Software Group
> >>  Sandia National Laboratories
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >> [mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jim Dinan
> >> [dinan at mcs.anl.gov]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:46 PM
> >> To: mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Mpi3-rma] Disp_unit in allocate_shared
> >> should be returned by win_shared_query?
> >>
> >> It's not inherently damaging, but it requires us to
> >> maintain/provide
> >> access to another O(p) structure and suggests to users that another
> >> process' disp_unit is useful information, which is incorrect. IIRC,
> >> we
> >> did discuss this in the working group and intentionally omitted it.
> >>
> >>  ~Jim.
> >>
> >> On 7/18/12 1:38 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:18:53PM -0500, James Dinan wrote:
> >>>> On 7/18/12 1:06 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:08:43PM -0500, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 07/18/2012 01:02 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jim,
> >>>>>>>> Is one process' disp_unit meaningful at another process? I
> >>>>>>>> thought that
> >>>>>>>> this is not the case. MPI provides no other routines to query
> >>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>> process' disp_unit.
> >>>>>>> It is something that the user is passing in. I don't know of a
> >>>>>>> particular use-case but we can query all other arguments that
> >>>>>>> each
> >>>>>>> process passed. One more integer seemed safe to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, what meaning does a disp_unit have in the context of
> >>>>>>>> load/store
> >>>>>>>> operations that will result from win_shared_query?
> >>>>>>> Nothing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem necessary.
> >>>>>>> Well, it's better to have it than to introduce it with a
> >>>>>>> different name
> >>>>>>> later. That was my main motivation. One could also use it in a
> >>>>>>> library
> >>>>>>> context to query. But that's weak, I know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This doesn't seem critical, and can always be added in MPI-3.1
> >>>>>> if we
> >>>>>> find it necessary. No reason to rush it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It cannot be added without a new function name. That was the
> >>>>> concern
> >>>>> here. Adding it seems less risk than not adding it. In addition,
> >>>>> it is
> >>>>> already added ;-).
> >>>>
> >>>> I am concerned that this is a harmful change. The disp_unit from
> >>>> one
> >>>> process has no meaningful use at another process. If the user
> >>>> wants to
> >>>> know it for some reason, they can use a separate communication
> >>>> operation.
> >>> I believe the potential damage is very limited. But we can have a
> >>> vote.
> >>>
> >>> So far it's still yes: 5, no: 1
> >>>
> >>> I'm just mediating, not making decisions.
> >>>
> >>> Torsten
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpi3-rma mailing list
> >> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpi3-rma mailing list
> >> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ### qreharg rug ebs fv crryF ------------- http://www.unixer.de/
> > -----
> > Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead
> > Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC)
> > 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801
> > NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

-- 
Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner at hlrs.de
High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530
University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832
Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)