Richard,

Thanks for identifying this issue and for the short example. I can confirm your original understanding was right, the upper bound should be identical on all ranks. I just pushed a patch (r26862), let me know if this fixes your issue.

  Thanks,
    george.

On Jul 24, 2012, at 17:27 , Richard Shaw wrote:

I've been speaking off line to Jonathan Dursi about this problem. And it does seems to be a bug.

The same problem crops up in a simplified 1d only case (test case attached). In this instance the specification seems to be comprehensible - looking at the pdf copy of MPI-2.2 spec, p92-93, the definition of cyclic gives MPI_LB=0, MPI_UB=gsize*ex.

Test case is creating a data type for an array of 10 doubles, cyclicly distributed across two processes with a block size of 1. Expected extent is 10*extent(MPI_DOUBLE) = 80. Results for OpenMPI v 1.4.4:

$ mpirun -np 2 ./testextent1d
Rank 0, size=40, extent=80, lb=0
Rank 1, size=40, extent=88, lb=0


Can anyone else confirm this?

Thanks
Richard

On Sunday, 15 July, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:

Hello,

I'm getting thoroughly confused trying to work out what is the correct extent of a block-cyclic distributed array type (created with MPI_Type_create_darray), and I'm hoping someone can clarify it for me.

My expectation is that calling MPI_Get_extent on this type should return the size of the original, global, array in bytes, whereas MPI_Type_size gives the size of the local section. This isn't really clear from the MPI 2.2 spec, but from reading around it sound like that's the obvious thing to expect.

I've attached a minimal C example which tests this behaviour, it creates a type which views a 10x10 array of doubles, in 3x3 blocks with a 2x2 process grid. So my expectation is that the extent is 10*10*sizeof(double) = 800. I've attached the results from running this below.

In practice both versions of OpenMPI (v1.4.4 and v1.6) I've tested don't give the behaviour I expect. It gives the correct type size on all processes, but only the rank 0 process gets the expected extent, all the others get a somewhat higher value. As a comparison IntelMPI (v4.0.3) does give the expected value for the extent (included below).

I'd be very grateful if someone could explain what the extent means for a darray type? And why it isn't the global array size?

Thanks,
Richard



== OpenMPI (v1.4.4 and 1.6) ==

$ mpirun -np 4 ./testextent
Rank 0, size=288, extent=800, lb=0
Rank 1, size=192, extent=824, lb=0
Rank 2, size=192, extent=1040, lb=0
Rank 3, size=128, extent=1064, lb=0



== IntelMPI ==

$ mpirun -np 4 ./testextent
Rank 0, size=288, extent=800, lb=0
Rank 1, size=192, extent=800, lb=0
Rank 2, size=192, extent=800, lb=0
Rank 3, size=128, extent=800, lb=0

Attachments:
- testextent.c

<testextent1d.c>_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users