Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-27 07:38:43


On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:

> I was just curious about the distinction between the pml, bml, and btl
> layers within OpenMPI and was wondering if there was any place (other
> than
> the code ;-) where I could read about the design decisions. Any
> pointers?

Unfortunately, not yet.

> Particularly, I'm just curious about the difference between pml-bml-btl
> and the old pml-ptl (as described in your TEG paper) and why changes
> were made. I'm also trying to understand the differences between this
> approach and LAM's RPI as well as the device-channel distinction made
> in
> MPICH2; could anyone recommend something I could read or give me a
> brief
> description here to satisfy my curiosities?

I can't speak for the MPICH2 device channel, but here's a summary of
the rest...

PML: Pretty much the same as it was described in the paper. Its
interface is basically MPI semantics (i.e., it sits right under
MPI_SEND and the rest).

BTL: Byte Transfer Layer; it's the next generation of PTL. The BTL is
much more simple than the PTL, and removes all vestigaes of any MPI
semantics that still lived in the PTL. It's a very simple byte mover
layer, intended to make it quite easy to implement new network
interfaces.

BML: BTL Management Layer; this used to be part of the PML but we
recently split it off into its own framework. It's mainly the utility
gorp of managing multiple BTL modules in a single process. This was
done because when working with the next generation of collectives,
MPI-2 IO, and MPI-2 one sided operations, we want to have the ability
to use the PML (which the collectives do today, for example) or to be
able to dive right down and directly use the BTLs (i.e., cut out a
little latency).

LAM's RPI is actually sorta similar to the PML -- it implements the
MPI-level semantics. But nothing was broken out below the RPI -- it
had to implement the MPI-level semantics *and* do multi-device *and* be
the byte transfer layer.

One point worth clarifying -- the word "layer" here is somewhat
misleading. These are not so much "layers" (meaning that you *have* to
go through the PML and then through the BML and then through the BTL to
send bytes) as they are logical separation of functionality. There are
certainly cases where the BML is bypassed, and, as I mentioned above,
we want to investigate bypassing the PML as well.

Does that help?

-- 
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} The Open MPI Project
{+} http://www.open-mpi.org/