[mpiwg-tools] Per the QMPI/PMPI+1/whatever discussion yesterday

Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) jsquyres at cisco.com
Wed Dec 10 09:59:42 CST 2014

On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Martin Schulz <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:

> Is this intended as temporary internal name or for the standard at the
> end.

Name for the standard.

> For the former, it¹s fine, but I don¹t think it¹s a good idea to have
> a special name space in the MPI standard. The forum already hated the idea
> of MPIT and we had to change it to MPI_T. Also, most of these functions
> are also intended for users, so why shouldn¹t they be normal MPI functions?

That's a fair point, and I don't have a good answer.

It's just a subjective feeling that a "QMPI_" namespace is good to be separate to indicate that you're talking with tools, not really the MPI implementation.

> We conquered (I think?) the biggest problem we had with multiple tools,
> the specification of which tools to load (this was the main reason why I
> suggested to limit the proposal). I think the dependencies are easy, which
> leaves ordering. Perhaps we should have at least some support for this
> already in the proposal.

Well, hmm.  There's still multi-tool problems, though -- e.g., ordering, pre/post side effects, replacement (i.e., tool A not getting called for MPI_Send because tool B decided to implement MPI_Send as MPI_Isend/MPI_Wait, etc.).

But perhaps you could convince me.  :-)

Do you want to sketch something out and come back with some ideas?

Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

More information about the mpiwg-tools mailing list