Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: add STCI component to OMPI/RTE framework
From: Edgar Gabriel (gabriel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-27 14:28:50


To through in my $0.02, I would see a benefit in adding the component to
the trunk. As I mentioned in the last teleconf, we are currently working
on adding support for the HPX runtime environment to Open MPI, and for
various reasons (that I can explain if somebody is interested), we think
at the moment that using the RTE abstraction layer could be easier for
achieving what we want to do. That is not at all a judgment on ORTE, but
a combination of what HPX offers and what we want to achieve within that
project.

I do not foresee at this point that our component would be production
quality or part of an upcoming OMPI release, having however another
component in the rte framework could be useful from our point of view.
(And yes, the person that asked the pmi/rte question on the mailing list
was my student who tried to make the pmi component work, and was
confused about the fact that other emails said that the pmi stuff is
working, while he couldn't even get it to compile :)

Edgar

On 5/27/2014 12:23 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> I have mixed thoughts on this request. We have a policy of only
> including things in the code base that are of general utility - i.e.,
> that should be generally distributed across the community. This
> component is only applicable to ORNL, and it would therefore seem
> more sensible to have it continue to be maintained there.
>
> I'm unaware of anyone outside of ORNL that regularly tests for
> ompi-rte abstraction violations, and I suspect that your internal
> tests are the right place for catching them as nobody else really
> seems to care. It isn't clear to me how adding this component
> directly to the general code base impacts that operation. The
> original PMI component in the ompi/rte framework wasn't intended to
> provide an alternative method for building OMPI - it was solely
> created to support the development of that framework and had no
> intended utility beyond that time (hence the RFC to remove it to
> avoid user confusion as we just saw on the user mailing list).
>
>
> On May 27, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Thomas Naughton <naughtont_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> WHAT: add new component to ompi/rte framework
>>
>> WHY: because it will simplify our maintenance & provide an alt.
>> reference
>>
>> WHEN: no rush, soon-ish? (June 12?)
>>
>> This is a component we currently maintain outside of the ompi tree
>> to support using OMPI with an alternate runtime system. This will
>> also provide an alternate component to ORTE, which was motivation
>> for PMI component in related RFC. We build/test nightly and it
>> occasionally catches ompi-rte abstraction violations, etc.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
Thomas Naughton naughtont_at_[hidden]
>> Research Associate (865)
>> 576-4184
>>
>> _______________________________________________ devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden] Subscription:
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel Link to this
>> post:
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14852.php
>
> _______________________________________________ devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden] Subscription:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14854.php
>

-- 
Edgar Gabriel
Associate Professor
Parallel Software Technologies Lab      http://pstl.cs.uh.edu
Department of Computer Science          University of Houston
Philip G. Hoffman Hall, Room 524        Houston, TX-77204, USA
Tel: +1 (713) 743-3857                  Fax: +1 (713) 743-3335