- discuss - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by Jeff Hammond 19 May '13

19 May '13

Yeah, I would use the abort strategy to detect if MPICH is using thread-related functions in MPI_THREAD_SINGLE (ignoring MPICH_ASYNC_PROGRESS=1) and the noop implementation for practical purposes. Jeff On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Thanks. Yes, they can be mostly no-ops (except TLS checks which can be > any static variable since there's only one thread by definition). > Implementing them as "not-implemented" aborts might be OK too. > > -- Pavan > > On 05/19/2013 02:43 PM US Central Time, Jeff Hammond wrote: >> Presumably those functions can be noops if no threads are going to be >> used. Am I wrong? >> >> It might be worth implementing those functions as stubs that abort >> with UNIMPL error and see how far that goes. I'll try to get to this >> later today. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/19/2013 02:28 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote: >>>> But i believe that the missing of POSIX >>>> threads can be the most trouble part. So we need to port to the thread >>>> implementation in EPOS. >>> >>> Yup, I too believe that'll be the blocker. MPICH supports multiple >>> threading packages, but currently requires at least one to function >>> correctly: >>> >>> https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/231 >>> >>> It's been a while since I looked into this issue, but I could look into >>> it if you are running into it for your platform. >>> >>> -- Pavan >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond ALCF docs: http://www.alcf.anl.gov/user-guides

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by Pavan Balaji 19 May '13

19 May '13

Thanks. Yes, they can be mostly no-ops (except TLS checks which can be any static variable since there's only one thread by definition). Implementing them as "not-implemented" aborts might be OK too. -- Pavan On 05/19/2013 02:43 PM US Central Time, Jeff Hammond wrote: > Presumably those functions can be noops if no threads are going to be > used. Am I wrong? > > It might be worth implementing those functions as stubs that abort > with UNIMPL error and see how far that goes. I'll try to get to this > later today. > > Jeff > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> On 05/19/2013 02:28 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote: >>> But i believe that the missing of POSIX >>> threads can be the most trouble part. So we need to port to the thread >>> implementation in EPOS. >> >> Yup, I too believe that'll be the blocker. MPICH supports multiple >> threading packages, but currently requires at least one to function >> correctly: >> >> https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/231 >> >> It's been a while since I looked into this issue, but I could look into >> it if you are running into it for your platform. >> >> -- Pavan >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by Jeff Hammond 19 May '13

19 May '13

Presumably those functions can be noops if no threads are going to be used. Am I wrong? It might be worth implementing those functions as stubs that abort with UNIMPL error and see how far that goes. I'll try to get to this later today. Jeff On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/19/2013 02:28 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote: >> But i believe that the missing of POSIX >> threads can be the most trouble part. So we need to port to the thread >> implementation in EPOS. > > Yup, I too believe that'll be the blocker. MPICH supports multiple > threading packages, but currently requires at least one to function > correctly: > > https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/231 > > It's been a while since I looked into this issue, but I could look into > it if you are running into it for your platform. > > -- Pavan > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond ALCF docs: http://www.alcf.anl.gov/user-guides

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by Pavan Balaji 19 May '13

19 May '13

On 05/19/2013 02:28 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote: > But i believe that the missing of POSIX > threads can be the most trouble part. So we need to port to the thread > implementation in EPOS. Yup, I too believe that'll be the blocker. MPICH supports multiple threading packages, but currently requires at least one to function correctly: https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/231 It's been a while since I looked into this issue, but I could look into it if you are running into it for your platform. -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by jhonatan alves 19 May '13

19 May '13

Hello, There are some functions, but we need to talk with the OS developer to find out which are missing. But i believe that the missing of POSIX threads can be the most trouble part. So we need to port to the thread implementation in EPOS. We are trying to MPICH right now to see what breaks. We will get those information and pass on the list. Thank you for helping. 2013/5/19 Pavan Balaji <balaji(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > On 05/19/2013 01:47 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote: > > We are trying port MPICH to a new operating system, called EPOS, but our > > main problem at the moment is that this operating system is not POSIX > > compatible. > > Our question is there some way to compile MPICH setting that is free of > > platform, so then we can implement the missing functions. > > MPICH is relatively platform independent, though no POSIX is a bit > overkill. Are no POSIX functions available or are a few functions > missing? If it's the latter, which functions? > > Did you try building mpich as-is, and see what breaks? > > -- Pavan > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by Jeff Hammond 19 May '13

19 May '13

What is the goal? Do you want MPICH to run trivially within a single process image, within a single node via interprocess communication, over multiple processes via TCP/IP, or something else? You might want to elaborate on what your operating system can do. Does "not POSIX" mean that it doesn't a single function defined by POSIX? Do you support the C standard library? Does your machine have GCC is some non-standard C compiler? It would also be useful to provide a make.log that shows where the compilation actually stops. I think that your best best is something along the lines of: while (1) { try to build; if (builds without errors) break; determine why it failed; implement the missing function; } The developer documentation is located at https://wiki.mpich.org/mpich/index.php/Developer_Documentation but this is almost certainly not a porting guide for porting MPICH to any system that is formally equivalent to a Turing machine. Jeff On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM, jhonatan alves <jhonatanalves1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > We are trying port MPICH to a new operating system, called EPOS, but our > main problem at the moment is that this operating system is not POSIX > compatible. > Our question is there some way to compile MPICH setting that is free of > platform, so then we can implement the missing functions. > And is there a porting manual of MPICH? > > Thx > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond ALCF docs: http://www.alcf.anl.gov/user-guides

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH
by Pavan Balaji 19 May '13

19 May '13

On 05/19/2013 01:47 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote: > We are trying port MPICH to a new operating system, called EPOS, but our > main problem at the moment is that this operating system is not POSIX > compatible. > Our question is there some way to compile MPICH setting that is free of > platform, so then we can implement the missing functions. MPICH is relatively platform independent, though no POSIX is a bit overkill. Are no POSIX functions available or are a few functions missing? If it's the latter, which functions? Did you try building mpich as-is, and see what breaks? -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Porting MPICH
by jhonatan alves 19 May '13

19 May '13

Hello, We are trying port MPICH to a new operating system, called EPOS, but our main problem at the moment is that this operating system is not POSIX compatible. Our question is there some way to compile MPICH setting that is free of platform, so then we can implement the missing functions. And is there a porting manual of MPICH? Thx

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Using arrays with negative indices in MPI Fortran
by Jeff Hammond 19 May '13

19 May '13

Can you post the code? That will help a lot. Thanks, Jeff Sent from my iPhone On May 19, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Himadri Barman <hbarhbar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I have a question: If I have an array with negative indices, say defined as A(-5:5) in Fortran. Can I use that for COLLECTIVE CALL, e.g MPI_Bcast, MPI_Gather without transforming to a new array with positive indices? If I have my array defined as A(0:11), I find no issues. Hope you can help me. Thanks and best regards, - Himadri -- Himadri Barman, Research Associate, Theoretical Sciences Unit, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Jakkur PO, Bangalore- 560 064, India. Phone: 91-80-2208-2986 Webpage: http://www.jncasr.ac.in/hbar/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Using arrays with negative indices in MPI Fortran
by Himadri Barman 19 May '13

19 May '13

Hi, I have a question: If I have an array with negative indices, say defined as A(-5:5) in Fortran. Can I use that for COLLECTIVE CALL, e.g MPI_Bcast, MPI_Gather without transforming to a new array with positive indices? If I have my array defined as A(0:11), I find no issues. Hope you can help me. Thanks and best regards, - Himadri -- Himadri Barman, Research Associate, Theoretical Sciences Unit, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Jakkur PO, Bangalore- 560 064, India. Phone: 91-80-2208-2986 Webpage: http://www.jncasr.ac.in/hbar/

1 0