The MPI Forum email lists and GitHub are not secret. Please feel free to
follow the GitHub project linked below and/or sign up for the MPI Forum
email lists if you are interested in the evolution of the MPI standard.
What MPI Forum members should avoid is creating FUD about MPI by
speculating about the removal of useful features. There is plenty of time
to have those debates in both public and private after formal proposals are
made.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Gus Correa <g...@ldeo.columbia.edu> wrote:
> Hmmm ... no, no, no!
> Keep it secret why!?!?
>
> Diego Avesani's questions and questioning
> may have saved us users from getting a
> useful feature deprecated in the name of code elegance.
> Code elegance may be very cherished by developers,
> but it is not necessarily helpful to users,
> specially if it strips off useful functionality.
>
> My cheap 2 cents from a user.
> Gus Correa
>
>
> On 08/10/2018 01:52 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>
>> This thread is a perfect illustration of why MPI Forum participants
>> should not flippantly discuss feature deprecation in discussion with
>> users. Users who are not familiar with the MPI Forum process are not able
>> to evaluate whether such proposals are serious or have any hope of
>> succeeding and therefore may be unnecessarily worried about their code
>> breaking in the future, when that future is 5 to infinity years away.
>>
>> If someone wants to deprecate MPI_{MIN,MAX}LOC, they should start that
>> discussion on https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues or
>> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-coll.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via users <
>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>> wrote:
>>
>> It is unlikely that MPI_MINLOC and MPI_MAXLOC will go away any time
>> soon.
>>
>> As far as I know, Nathan hasn't advanced a proposal to kill them in
>> MPI-4, meaning that they'll likely continue to be in MPI for at
>> least another 10 years. :-)
>>
>> (And even if they did get killed in MPI-4, implementations like Open
>> MPI would continue to keep them in our implementations for quite a
>> while -- i.e., years)
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 10, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Diego Avesani
>> <diego.aves...@gmail.com <mailto:diego.aves...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree about the names, it is very similar to MIN_LOC and
>> MAX_LOC in fortran 90.
>> > However, I find difficult to define some algorithm able to do the
>> same things.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Diego
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10 August 2018 at 19:03, Nathan Hjelm via users
>> <users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>> wrote:
>> > They do not fit with the rest of the predefined operations (which
>> operate on a single basic type) and can easily be implemented as
>> user defined operations and get the same performance. Add to that
>> the fixed number of tuple types and the fact that some of them are
>> non-contiguous (MPI_SHORT_INT) plus the terrible names. If I could
>> kill them in MPI-4 I would.
>> >
>> > On Aug 10, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Diego Avesani
>> <diego.aves...@gmail.com <mailto:diego.aves...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear all,
>> >> I have just implemented MAXLOC, why should they go away?
>> >> it seems working pretty well.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >>
>> >> Diego
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10 August 2018 at 17:39, Nathan Hjelm via users
>> <users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>> wrote:
>> >> The problem is minloc and maxloc need to go away. better to use
>> a custom op.
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 10, 2018, at 9:36 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu
>> <mailto:bosi...@icl.utk.edu>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> You will need to create a special variable that holds 2
>> entries, one for the max operation (with whatever type you need) and
>> an int for the rank of the process. The MAXLOC is described on the
>> OMPI man page [1] and you can find an example on how to use it on
>> the MPI Forum [2].
>> >>>
>> >>> George.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://www.open-mpi.org/doc/v2.0/man3/MPI_Reduce.3.php
>> <https://www.open-mpi.org/doc/v2.0/man3/MPI_Reduce.3.php>
>> >>> [2]
>> https://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-1.1/mpi-11-html/node79.html
>> <https://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-1.1/mpi-11-html/node79.html>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:25 AM Diego Avesani
>> <diego.aves...@gmail.com <mailto:diego.aves...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>> I have probably understood.
>> >>> The trick is to use a real vector and to memorize also the rank.
>> >>>
>> >>> Have I understood correctly?
>> >>> thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> Diego
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10 August 2018 at 17:19, Diego Avesani
>> <diego.aves...@gmail.com <mailto:diego.aves...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>> Deal all,
>> >>> I do not understand how MPI_MINLOC works. it seem locate the
>> maximum in a vector and not the CPU to which the valur belongs to.
>> >>>
>> >>> @ray: and if two has the same value?
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Diego
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10 August 2018 at 17:03, Ray Sheppard <rshep...@iu.edu
>> <mailto:rshep...@iu.edu>> wrote:
>> >>> As a dumb scientist, I would just bcast the value I get back to
>> the group and ask whoever owns it to kindly reply back with its rank.
>> >>> Ray
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 8/10/2018 10:49 AM, Reuti wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 10.08.2018 um 16:39 schrieb Diego Avesani
>> <diego.aves...@gmail.com <mailto:diego.aves...@gmail.com>>:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have a problem:
>> >>> In my parallel program each CPU compute a value, let's say eff.
>> >>>
>> >>> First of all, I would like to know the maximum value. This for
>> me is quite simple,
>> >>> I apply the following:
>> >>>
>> >>> CALL MPI_ALLREDUCE(eff, effmaxWorld, 1, MPI_DOUBLE_PRECISION,
>> MPI_MAX, MPI_MASTER_COMM, MPIworld%iErr)
>> >>> Would MPI_MAXLOC be sufficient?
>> >>>
>> >>> -- Reuti
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> However, I would like also to know to which CPU that value
>> belongs. Is it possible?
>> >>>
>> >>> I have set-up a strange procedure but it works only when all
>> the CPUs has different values but fails when two of then has the
>> same eff value.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there any intrinsic MPI procedure?
>> >>> in anternative,
>> >>> do you have some idea?
>> >>>
>> >>> really, really thanks.
>> >>> Diego
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Diego
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> users mailing list
>> >>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> users mailing list
>> >>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> users mailing list
>> >>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> users mailing list
>> >>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> users mailing list
>> >>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> users mailing list
>> >> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> users mailing list
>> >> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> >> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > users mailing list
>> > users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> > https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > users mailing list
>> > users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> > https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>>
>>
>> -- Jeff Squyres
>> jsquy...@cisco.com <mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org>
>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Hammond
>> jeff.scie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeff.scie...@gmail.com>
>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users@lists.open-mpi.org
>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.scie...@gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.open-mpi.org
https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
