search

mpi-forum / mpi-issues

Tickets for the MPI Forum
http://www.mpi-forum.org/
67 stars 7 forks source link

Reorganizing the "Collective Communication" Chapter #90

Open tonyskjellum opened 6 years ago

tonyskjellum commented 6 years ago

Problem

Clarifications are needed now that Persistent Communication has been added.

Proposal

Persistent communication addition has raised the need for clarifying text. This definitely applies to the Collective chapter

Changes to the Text

Chapter 5 (Collective Chapter) -- updated appropriately.

Impact on Implementations

None.

Impact on Users

Clarity for users.

References

Ticket #25 [which has passed 2 votes now] is driving this requirement, but we want to settle this concern separately as agreed in Forum meetings.

Here is the corresponding pull request: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/89 (This is a revised pull requested as of 19-Nov-18)

tonyskjellum commented 6 years ago

mpi32-report-ticket90.pdf

This copy is public.

tonyskjellum commented 6 years ago

A review was done on June 13, 2018 at the MPI meeting in Austin. Updates will be made and a reading will be presented in Barcelona.

tonyskjellum commented 6 years ago

@puribangalore --- Please look at Ticket #80; the latest update adds _X APIs for the persistent collectives; in the process, I've had to go back and enumerate both persistent and persistent _X operations where they have failed to be named throughout Chapter 5. This has got to be related to editorial changes you've been undertaking or plan to do here. In fact, we need to correlate those changes. Ticket #105 will likewise do a review of function enumeration once we add the _X APIs later this week.

tonyskjellum commented 6 years ago

@puribangalore --- we need to update this for the meeting next Thursday ... we need to finish before November 10! We will present in San Jose... do you need help?

tonyskjellum commented 5 years ago

Here is the latest text, before the two-week deadline, so we can read the ticket. As soon as we fix a make/latex issue with the latest mpi-3.x checkout, the pull request will match this. [I can't build right now, @puribangalore built this from India but could not upload.]

mpi32-report-ticket90-19nov18.pdf

tonyskjellum commented 5 years ago

Here's the text we actually want you to read for the two-week deadline review:

mpi32-report-ticket90-19nov18.pdf

tonyskjellum commented 5 years ago

@puribangalore read the chapter; there was various feedback of a general nature.

For instance, issues with commas and capitalization (already addressed to first order).

However, by strawpoll, we voted to reorganize the chapter so that "All Barrier, "All Broadcast," ... "All Exscan." is the order, rather than a parallel section Blocking, Nonblocking, and Persistent. That will necessarily "transpose the 3 sections of operations, and move ahead the discussions, so that the operations will all be "together." This mirror the topologies and other chapters better. This is meant to be part of this ticket... and a careful review is required to be sure we don't change any meanings. That is not supposed to happen just by reordering presentation of the APIs. @puribangalore and @tonyskjellum will do this reordering task and present in Chattanooga in March.

tonyskjellum commented 5 years ago

We did not do the recommended steps for Chattanooga. We are revisiting this task for Chicago.

tonyskjellum commented 5 years ago

Aiming for MPI-4.1 because it is "text tidying." We will wait till all MPI-4.0 work is done before revisiting this.

Wee-Free-Scot commented 2 years ago

This needs to move very quickly if it is going to hit MPI-4.1 -- who is working on it?

wesbland commented 1 year ago

This wasn't read at the December 2022 meeting. The last opportunity for MPI 4.1 is to have it ready at the March 2022 meeting (and it needs to "pass" the reading).

@tonyskjellum / @puribangalore Are you (or is someone else) planning to push this forward or should we move it out of the plan for MPI 4.1?

jaegerj commented 1 year ago

This won't be ready for 4.1 but can be targeted to MPI 5.0.

The title does not fit the content of the ticket anymore. Some clarifications have already been made, and another ticket exist to focus on the indroductory text of the collective chapter (https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/256 -- which also should be rename with the current title of this ticket ironically)

The main part of the ticket which has not been handled yet is the reorganizing of the collective chapter. Maybe we should rename this ticket accordingly.

wesbland commented 1 year ago

@jaegerj - You're welcome to rename the ticket to anything you like. :)

jaegerj commented 1 year ago

@tonyskjellum @puribangalore would it be ok with you to rename this ticket "Reorganizing the collective chapter" ?

puribangalore commented 1 year ago

Fine with me.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 8:29 AM Julien Jaeger @.***> wrote:

@tonyskjellum https://github.com/tonyskjellum @puribangalore https://github.com/puribangalore would it be ok with you to rename this ticket "Reorganizing the collective chapter" ?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/90#issuecomment-1441892178, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD2CIBOIZGHBN6CUZFCFEFDWY5X4XANCNFSM4EWQV3WA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>