New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nonblocking constructor/destructor(s) for the "One-sided Communication" RMA Chapter #82

Open
tonyskjellum opened this Issue Mar 1, 2018 · 15 comments

Comments

@tonyskjellum

tonyskjellum commented Mar 1, 2018

Problem

To make fully nonblocking MPI libraries and codes, we want there to be available nonblocking constructors and destructors for communicators, windows, and files. This ticket separates out the request to add these functions in the RMA chapter. This only addresses constructors/destructors, not operations such as MPI_Win_fence.

Cross-correlates with Ticket #78 (Several chapters other than RMA and DPM) and #81 (DPM).

Proposal

  1. Non-blocking constructors:
    MPI_WIN_ICREATE
    MPI_WIN_IALLOCATE
    MPI_WIN_IALLOCATE_SHARED
    MPI_WIN_ICREATE_DYNAMIC
  2. Non-blocking destructor:
    MPI_WIN_IFREE

Changes to the Text

Appropriate additional text is added to define and clarify the behavior of each new functions. Specific clarification on the usability of the handles before completion in the constructors will be made; specific clarification about the non-usability of the handles after calling the destructor will be made.

Impact on Implementations

Describe changes that implementations will be required to make here.

Impact on Users

Describe the changes that will impact users here.

References

Here is the corresponding pull request: mpi-forum/mpi-standard#52

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Mar 1, 2018

Here is the initial chapter text:

mpi32-report-irma-01mar18.pdf

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Jun 6, 2018

mpi32-report-ticket82.pdf

This is the public copy.

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Jun 14, 2018

We will make some quality improvements based on the reading attempt in Austin on June 13, 2018 and present a new reading in Barcelona.

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Sep 26, 2018

@wgropp : we did a preliminary reading in June; we did not, as you know, attempt a reading in Barcelona. There is full proposal text, but it needs review. What do you propose for December reading? I can re-read and tweak, but the RMA working group needs to weigh in.

@wgropp

This comment has been minimized.

wgropp commented Sep 26, 2018

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Sep 26, 2018

@wgropp

This comment has been minimized.

wgropp commented Sep 26, 2018

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Sep 26, 2018

@wgropp

This comment has been minimized.

wgropp commented Sep 26, 2018

@dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk commented Sep 26, 2018

Global issues sounds like the remit of an ARB. We could choose to view the ARB as a special WG, i.e. needs 4 vote-eligible organisations to support its creation, gets its own Github fork (with a wiki, issues, and branches), discusses topics internally, brings Forum-ready proposals to plenary presentations - like any other WG. EPCC supports the creation of an "ARB" WG. We need +3 other vote-eligible organisations.

@wesbland

This comment has been minimized.

Member

wesbland commented Sep 26, 2018

Who would be in it? The ARB participation (aside from Bill) is pretty... sparse. If you're talking about a new working group, participation should be open to everyone.

@dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk commented Sep 26, 2018

@wesbland This is (implicitly) my point. We either continue to decry the lamentable absence of the ARB, or we reconstitute one from the available resources. I vote for the latter option.

@dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk commented Sep 26, 2018

Also implicit, but worth making explicit, I am willing to offer my services as a member of such a group. Is this group freely accessible to all (like a normal WG) or by Forum-vote or at least by acclamation? The Forum should discuss decide at the next meeting.

@wgropp

This comment has been minimized.

wgropp commented Sep 27, 2018

@tonyskjellum

This comment has been minimized.

tonyskjellum commented Sep 27, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment