March 2017 - discuss - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Jeff Hammond 31 Mar '17

31 Mar '17

Thanks. I vaguely remember that discussion but I was confused by the text until now. Jeff On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > > MPI-2.2 page 347, line 31: > > "Distinct access epochs for win at the same process must be disjoint." > > We had a passionate discussion about this at the Forum for an entire day many years ago, even though every single person agreed that this restriction was silly. Kind of hard to forget. Fun times. :-) > > -- Pavan > > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I cannot find the text in MPI 2.1 that says one cannot initiate a shared lock at two processes at the same time. I have some vague recollection, but I read the chapter twice and couldn't find the restriction. > > > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > > > No, it's not a bug. PAMID only supports MPI-2.1. Before you do locks to multiple targets, you need to check if MPI_VERSION >= 3. MPI-2 only supported locks to a single target. MPI-3 added multiple lock epochs. > > > > Also, pamid is not supported anymore in MPICH. We recommend the MPICH-3.3/OFI/BGQ path for Blue Gene. > > > > -- Pavan > > > > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. > > > > > > You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. > > > > > > Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke < rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > > > Same window, i.e.: > > > > > > Process 0: > > > > > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) > > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Same window or different windows? > > >> > > >> Jeff > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke < rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. > > >> > > >> Here is my example: > > >> > > >> Process 0: > > >> > > >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) > > >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) > > >> > > >> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire more than one lock > > >> at a time. > > >> > > >> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. > > >> > > >> Can you confirm this issue? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Sebastian > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >> -- > > >> Jeff Hammond > > >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > > >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeff Hammond > > > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > > > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Hammond > > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Balaji, Pavan 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

MPI-2.2 page 347, line 31: "Distinct access epochs for win at the same process must be disjoint." We had a passionate discussion about this at the Forum for an entire day many years ago, even though every single person agreed that this restriction was silly. Kind of hard to forget. Fun times. :-) -- Pavan > On Mar 30, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I cannot find the text in MPI 2.1 that says one cannot initiate a shared lock at two processes at the same time. I have some vague recollection, but I read the chapter twice and couldn't find the restriction. > > Jeff > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > No, it's not a bug. PAMID only supports MPI-2.1. Before you do locks to multiple targets, you need to check if MPI_VERSION >= 3. MPI-2 only supported locks to a single target. MPI-3 added multiple lock epochs. > > Also, pamid is not supported anymore in MPICH. We recommend the MPICH-3.3/OFI/BGQ path for Blue Gene. > > -- Pavan > > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. > > > > You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. > > > > Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. > > > > Best, > > > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > > Same window, i.e.: > > > > Process 0: > > > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Same window or different windows? > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. > >> > >> Here is my example: > >> > >> Process 0: > >> > >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) > >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) > >> > >> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire more than one lock > >> at a time. > >> > >> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. > >> > >> Can you confirm this issue? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sebastian > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> -- > >> Jeff Hammond > >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Hammond > > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Jeff Hammond 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

I cannot find the text in MPI 2.1 that says one cannot initiate a shared lock at two processes at the same time. I have some vague recollection, but I read the chapter twice and couldn't find the restriction. Jeff On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > No, it's not a bug. PAMID only supports MPI-2.1. Before you do locks to > multiple targets, you need to check if MPI_VERSION >= 3. MPI-2 only > supported locks to a single target. MPI-3 added multiple lock epochs. > > Also, pamid is not supported anymore in MPICH. We recommend the > MPICH-3.3/OFI/BGQ path for Blue Gene. > > -- Pavan > > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported > MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM > made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, > best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including > deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. > > > > You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the > unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. > > > > Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person > who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. > > > > Best, > > > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke < > rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > > Same window, i.e.: > > > > Process 0: > > > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Same window or different windows? > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke < > rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. > >> > >> Here is my example: > >> > >> Process 0: > >> > >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) > >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) > >> > >> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot > acquire more than one lock > >> at a time. > >> > >> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one > lock. > >> > >> Can you confirm this issue? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sebastian > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> -- > >> Jeff Hammond > >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com > >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Hammond > > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Balaji, Pavan 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

No, it's not a bug. PAMID only supports MPI-2.1. Before you do locks to multiple targets, you need to check if MPI_VERSION >= 3. MPI-2 only supported locks to a single target. MPI-3 added multiple lock epochs. Also, pamid is not supported anymore in MPICH. We recommend the MPICH-3.3/OFI/BGQ path for Blue Gene. -- Pavan > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. > > You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. > > Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. > > Best, > > Jeff > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Same window, i.e.: > > Process 0: > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) > > Sebastian > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Same window or different windows? >> >> Jeff >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. >> >> Here is my example: >> >> Process 0: >> >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) >> >> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire more than one lock >> at a time. >> >> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. >> >> Can you confirm this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> Sebastian >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Sebastian Rinke 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

OK. Sebastian On 30 Mar 2017, at 17:49, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I recommend filing the bug regarding the supported MPI. I can't find any statement in the MPI standard indicating it shouldn't work. > > Jeff > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Thanks a lot for your answer! > > The same problem occurs in the supported MPI-2.2 on BGQ. > Ok, I will try the OFI-based MPI-3. > > Thanks, > Sebastian > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 17:12, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. >> >> You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. >> >> Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. >> >> Best, >> >> Jeff >> >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: >> Same window, i.e.: >> >> Process 0: >> >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Same window or different windows? >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. >>> >>> Here is my example: >>> >>> Process 0: >>> >>> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) >>> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) >>> >>> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire more than one lock >>> at a time. >>> >>> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. >>> >>> Can you confirm this issue? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sebastian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> -- >>> Jeff Hammond >>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Jeff Hammond 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

I recommend filing the bug regarding the supported MPI. I can't find any statement in the MPI standard indicating it shouldn't work. Jeff On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Thanks a lot for your answer! > > The same problem occurs in the supported MPI-2.2 on BGQ. > Ok, I will try the OFI-based MPI-3. > > Thanks, > Sebastian > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 17:12, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported > MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM > made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, > best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including > deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. > > You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the > unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. > > Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who > used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. > > Best, > > Jeff > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de > > wrote: > >> Same window, i.e.: >> >> Process 0: >>> >>> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) >>> >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) >> >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Same window or different windows? >> >> Jeff >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. >>> >>> Here is my example: >>> >>> Process 0: >>> >>> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) >>> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) >>> >>> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot >>> acquire more than one lock >>> at a time. >>> >>> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. >>> >>> Can you confirm this issue? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sebastian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Sebastian Rinke 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

Thanks a lot for your answer! The same problem occurs in the supported MPI-2.2 on BGQ. Ok, I will try the OFI-based MPI-3. Thanks, Sebastian On 30 Mar 2017, at 17:12, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. > > You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. > > Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. > > Best, > > Jeff > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Same window, i.e.: > > Process 0: > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) > > Sebastian > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Same window or different windows? >> >> Jeff >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. >> >> Here is my example: >> >> Process 0: >> >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) >> >> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire more than one lock >> at a time. >> >> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. >> >> Can you confirm this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> Sebastian >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> jeff.science(a)gmail.com >> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Jeff Hammond 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

I guess this is a bug but MPICH 3.1.x isn't the basis for the supported MPI on BGQ, so I doubt you will get much traction by reporting it. IBM made an effort to support MPI-3 with PAMID but it was as an open-source, best effort project, and I recall there were some issues with it, including deadlock in certain asynchronous operations. You should try the supported MPI-2.2 implementation on BGQ or try the unsupported OFI-based implementation of MPI-3. Disclaimer: The comments above are spoken in my capacity as the person who used to support MPI at ALCF, not my current job role. Best, Jeff On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Same window, i.e.: > > Process 0: >> >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) >> > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) > > > Sebastian > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Same window or different windows? > > Jeff > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. >> >> Here is my example: >> >> Process 0: >> >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) >> Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) >> >> No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire >> more than one lock >> at a time. >> >> To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. >> >> Can you confirm this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> Sebastian >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Sebastian Rinke 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

Same window, i.e.: Process 0: Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A, window=win) Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B, window=win) Sebastian On 30 Mar 2017, at 06:24, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Same window or different windows? > > Jeff > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. > > Here is my example: > > Process 0: > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) > > No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire more than one lock > at a time. > > To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. > > Can you confirm this issue? > > Thanks, > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] MPICH-3.1.4 with PAMID: Win_lock
by Jeff Hammond 29 Mar '17

29 Mar '17

Same window or different windows? Jeff On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM Sebastian Rinke <rinke(a)cs.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > I have some issue with MPI_Win_lock in MPICH-3.1.4 on Blue Gene/Q. > > Here is my example: > > Process 0: > > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=A) > Win_lock(MPI_LOCK_SHARED, target=B) > > No matter what I use for A and B (given A != B), a process cannot acquire > more than one lock > at a time. > > To my understanding, it should be possible to acquire more than one lock. > > Can you confirm this issue? > > Thanks, > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0