February 2014 - devel - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpich-devel] remove armci?
by Balaji, Pavan 21 Feb '14

21 Feb '14

Oh, yes. We were supposed to do that. I’ll create a ticket for it. — Pavan On 2/20/14, 2:27 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I thought armci was going to be removed from MPICH because it now >lives at git.mpich.org/armci-mpi.git/. > >Seems like a waste of CO2 to ship these files around the internet >unnecessarily at this point. > >Best, > >Jeff > >-- >Jeff Hammond >jeff.science(a)gmail.com

1 0

Dynamic process management test case issue?
by Archer, Charles J 21 Feb '14

21 Feb '14

Hi. The test case test/mpi/spawn/concurrent_spawns.c mixes MPI_Comm_free with MPI_Comm_disconnect (lines 115/122) from different ranks on the same inter-communicator. Both MPI_Comm_free and MPI_Comm_disconnect are defined as collective (although possibly implemented with reference counting or non-collective behavior...most MPI's don't synchronize). As far as I know there is no precedent for mixing different collective calls across ranks in a communicator, so symmetric calls to disconnect or free should be made....but don't mix them. I understand for free/disconnect, "collective" does not necessarily mean synchronizing, but the specification is clear that comm disconnect/free should be considered collective. See the test cmfree.c as an example of a test case that relies on collective, but not synchronizing behavior of free(). There is language in the spec indicating that disconnect "has the same action" as free (page 400), but I don't think it implies that you can mix the calls. Additionally, what does it mean to disconnect one side of the connection? I can't find any solid evidence that this test case is legal. At first glance, the example on page 396 of the spec seems to indicate that mixing is allowed. However mixing cannot happen; the example is confusing. If mixing free/disconnect was intentional, I think we probably need some clarification of the MPI spec with regards to this....unless I'm missing something entirely. Here is a patch that fixes this test case, please weigh in if you have some insight. diff --git a/test/mpi/spawn/concurrent_spawns.c b/test/mpi/spawn/concurrent_spawns.c index e44f53a..df82b13 100644 --- a/test/mpi/spawn/concurrent_spawns.c +++ b/test/mpi/spawn/concurrent_spawns.c @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) if (parentcomm != MPI_COMM_NULL) { MPI_Send(&errs, 1, MPI_INT, 0, 0, parentcomm); - MPI_Comm_free( &parentcomm ); + MPI_Comm_disconnect( &parentcomm ); } else { /* Note that the MTest_Finalize get errs only over COMM_WORLD */

1 0

remove armci?
by Jeff Hammond 20 Feb '14

20 Feb '14

I thought armci was going to be removed from MPICH because it now lives at git.mpich.org/armci-mpi.git/. Seems like a waste of CO2 to ship these files around the internet unnecessarily at this point. Best, Jeff -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com

1 0

MPI::Op::Reduce_local() missing const
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 05 Feb '14

05 Feb '14

<drive by bug report> I was doing a comparison with MPICH 3.0.4 tonight to try to track down a bug in OMPI and noticed that MPICH's MPI::Op::Reduce_local() binding is missing the const declaration. </drive by bug report> -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] Second review on test suite change
by Latham, Robert J. 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 19:36 +0000, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote: > On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:06 PM, "Latham, Robert J." <robl(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > but there is one fix that's in the "so simple how could it have ever > > worked before" category that i'd like to run by a wider audience: > > > > commit b4c9f88fa1aa6a957d2a1df8d9a33561e1d68ab8 > > I clearly wrote the code in question, see http://git.mpich.org/mpich.git/commitdiff/4aba817fda95da257258befed3fa34167…. Sorry for the bug. > > To me the fix looks good. We probably never noticed the bug before because it's somewhat rare for the MPICH test suite to have build failures when built against the matching version of MPICH itself. Most failures are run-time issues in that case. > Dave! thanks for parachuting in. In this case the test that was failing was a new test. We wouldn't expect those to fail either but we're only human... ==rob

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] Second review on test suite change
by Dave Goodell (dgoodell) 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:06 PM, "Latham, Robert J." <robl(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > but there is one fix that's in the "so simple how could it have ever > worked before" category that i'd like to run by a wider audience: > > commit b4c9f88fa1aa6a957d2a1df8d9a33561e1d68ab8 I clearly wrote the code in question, see http://git.mpich.org/mpich.git/commitdiff/4aba817fda95da257258befed3fa34167…. Sorry for the bug. To me the fix looks good. We probably never noticed the bug before because it's somewhat rare for the MPICH test suite to have build failures when built against the matching version of MPICH itself. Most failures are run-time issues in that case. -Dave

1 0

Second review on test suite change
by Latham, Robert J. 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

Bill and I have been working on some datatype changes. A few weeks back, that work broke the MPICH-1 tests run out of cron, so we reverted. Bill's got a series of patches to introduce the MPICH1 tests into the mpich tests (getting them into the jenkins reports as well). I think Jenkins is happy with the patches: https://jenkins.mpich.org/view/mpich-review/job/mpich-review/660/ but there is one fix that's in the "so simple how could it have ever worked before" category that i'd like to run by a wider audience: commit b4c9f88fa1aa6a957d2a1df8d9a33561e1d68ab8 Author: William Gropp <wgropp(a)illinois.edu> Date: Sun Feb 2 22:34:37 2014 -0600 Fix bug in marking unbuilt tests as failed The xfail additions to the runtests code had an incorrect test on xfail that caused runtests to stop recording a test that could not be built as failed - thus, the test script would report success for all tests when some tests were not run. Signed-off-by: Rob Latham <robl(a)mcs.anl.gov> diff --git a/test/mpi/runtests.in b/test/mpi/runtests.in index ad15bb55..91157e94 100644 --- a/test/mpi/runtests.in +++ b/test/mpi/runtests.in @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ sub RunList { $progEnv, $mpiexecArgs, $xfail ); } } - elsif ($xfail ne '') { + elsif ($xfail eq '') { # We expected to run this program, so failure to build # is an error $found_error = 1;

1 0