Today we feature a deep-dive guest post from Ralph Castain, Senior Architecture in the Advanced R&D group at Greenplum, an EMC company.
Jeff is lazy this week, so he asked that I provide some notes on the process binding options available in the Open MPI (OMPI) v1.5 release series.
First, though, a caveat. The binding options in the v1.5 series are pretty much the same as in the prior v1.4 series. However, future releases (beginning with the v1.7 series) will have significantly different options providing a broader array of controls. I won’t address those here, but will do so in a later post.
Read More »
Tags: HPC, hwloc, mpi, NUMA, Open MPI, process affinity, processor affinity
Today we feature a deep-dive guest post from Torsten Hoefler, the Performance Modeling and Simulation lead of the Blue Waters project at NCSA, and Pavan Balaji, computer scientist in the Mathematics and Computer Science (MCS) Division at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and as a fellow of the Computation Institute at the University of Chicago.
Despite MPI’s vast success in bringing portable message passing to scientists on a wide variety of platforms, MPI has been labeled as a communication model that only supports “two-sided” and “global” communication. The MPI-1 standard, which was released in 1994, provided functionality for performing two-sided and group or collective communication. The MPI-2 standard, released in 1997, added support for one-sided communication or remote memory access (RMA) capabilities, among other things. However, users have been slow to adopt such capabilities because of a number of reasons, the primary ones being: (1) the model was too strict for several application behavior patterns, and (2) there were several missing features in the MPI-2 RMA standard. Bonachea and Duell put together a more-or-less comprehensive list of areas where MPI-2 RMA falls behind. A number of alternate programming models, including Global Arrays, UPC and CAF have gained popularity filling this gap.
That’s where MPI-3 comes in.
Read More »
Tags: HPC, mpi, MPI-3, RMA
At long last, Craig Rasmussen (from Los Alamos National Laboratory) and I are ready to publish our prototype implementation of the MPI-3 Fortran bindings. The new MPI-3 Fortran bindings are coming up for their second vote at the upcoming MPI Forum meeting in Chicago; this public release satisfies the “must implement all new proposed behavior” requirement for proposals to get in MPI-3.
The good stuff:
Please download and give this implementation a whirl! We’d love to hear your feedback.
So let’s dive a little deeper into the details…
Read More »
Tags: Fortran, HPC, mpi, MPI-3
There’s been some discussion of Big New Features in MPI-3 recently (and more are coming!). But today, I want to talk about a little new feature. Something small, but still useful.
I’m talking about a new function named MPI_GET_LIBRARY_VERSION.
Its only purpose in life is to shed some light on to the implementation that you’re using. It returns a simple string, and is intended to be human-readable (vs. being machine-parseable). The format of the string is not mandated, but it is assumed that MPI implementations will include reasonably detailed information about their specific version.
Read More »
Tags: mpi, MPI-3
I made an offhand remark in my last entry about how MPI buffered sends are evil. In a comment on that entry, @brockpalen asked me why.
I gave a brief explanation in a comment reply, but the subject is enough to warrant its own blog entry.
So here it is — my top 10 reasons why MPI_BSEND (and its two variants) are evil:
- Buffered sends generally force an extra copy of the outgoing message (i.e., a copy from the application’s buffer to internal MPI storage). Note that I said “generally” — an MPI implementation doesn’t have to copy. But the MPI standard says “Thus, if a send is executed and no matching receive is posted, then MPI must buffer the outgoing message…” Ouch. Most implementations just always copy the message and then start processing the send. Read More »
Tags: HPC, mpi