Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RTE Issue III: Collective communications across daemons
From: Tim Prins (tprins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-05 10:56:17


> The latter issue exists for even MPI jobs. Consider the case of a single
> process job that comm_spawns a child job onto other nodes. The RTE will
> launch daemons on the new nodes, and then broadcast the "launch procs"
> command across all the daemons (this is done to exploit a scalable comm
> procedure). Thus, the daemon on the initial node will see the launch
> command, but will know it is not participating and hence take no action.

So we're doing something that is inherently non-scalable to take
advantage of scalable routines? It seems that in most cases we only want
to send the info to the daemons that need it, even if this means
unicasting the message.

I guess I don't quite understand the problem.

Tim

Ralph H Castain wrote:
> III. Collective communications across daemons
> A few months ago, we deliberately extended the abstraction between the RTE
> and MPI layers to reduce their interaction. This has generally been
> perceived as a good thing, but it did have a cost: namely, it increased the
> communications required during launch. In prior OMPI versions, we took
> advantage of tighter integration to aggregate RTE and MPI communications
> required during startup - this was lost in the abstraction effort.
>
> We have since been working to reduce the resulting "abstraction penalty". We
> have managed to achieve communication performance that scales linearly with
> the number of nodes. Further improvements, though, depend upon our ability
> to do quasi-collective communications in the RTE.
>
> Collectives in the RTE are complicated by the current requirement to support
> non-MPI applications (topic of another email), and by the fact that not
> every node participates in a given operation. The former issue is reflected
> in the fact that the RTE (and hence, the daemon) cannot know if the
> application process is going to call Init or not - hence, the logic in the
> daemon must not block on any communication during launch since the proc may
> completely execute and terminate without ever calling Init. Thus, entering a
> collective to, for example, collect RML contact info is problematic as that
> info may never become available - and so, the HNP -cannot- enter a
> collective call to wait for its arrival.
>
> The latter issue exists for even MPI jobs. Consider the case of a single
> process job that comm_spawns a child job onto other nodes. The RTE will
> launch daemons on the new nodes, and then broadcast the "launch procs"
> command across all the daemons (this is done to exploit a scalable comm
> procedure). Thus, the daemon on the initial node will see the launch
> command, but will know it is not participating and hence take no action.
>
> If we now attempt to perform a collective communication (say, to collect RML
> contact info), we face four interacting obstacles:
>
> (a) the initial daemon isn't launching anything this time, and so won't know
> it has to participate. This can obviously be resolved since it will
> certainly know that a launch is being conducted, so we could have it simply
> go ahead and call the appropriate collective at that time;
>
> (b) the launch of the local procs is conducted asynchronously - hence, no
> daemon can know when another daemon has completed the launch and thus is
> ready to communicate;
>
> (c) the failure of any local launch can generate an error response back to
> the daemons with orders to kill their procs, exit, or other things. The
> daemons must, therefore, not be in blocking communication calls as this will
> prevent them from responding as directed; and
>
> (d) the daemons may not be fully connected - hence, any collective must
> "follow" the communication topology.
>
> What we could use is a quasi-collective "gather" based on non-blocking
> receives that preserves the daemons' ability to respond to unexpected
> commands such as "kill/exit". If someone is interested in working on this,
> please contact me for a fuller description of the problem.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel